It (2017)

[tob]

Originally Posted by Impossible

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by tob

[javy]

I love Stewie...

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Impossible

Agreed, The Stand was horrible too. While Salems Lot has dated horribly as well at least it's still watchable.

It and The Stand have both got great premises, but are totally ruined by terrible endings.

Keep slagging off Uncle Stevie and I'm movin' out.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Keep slagging off Uncle Stevie and I'm movin' out.

***** I kicked you out months ago x

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Impossible

***** I kicked you out months ago x

I've been hiding in the attic. Didn't you wonder what the stench was?

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

I've been hiding in the attic. Didn't you wonder what the stench was?

I don't have an attic

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Impossible

I don't have an attic

Whose house am I in!?

[Chaotic]

Hopefully this beats 9/11 at the box office.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Whose house am I in!?

The guy I sold you to x

[dissention]

Originally Posted by javy

Dude, please don't hate me now but, I've never seen Salem's Lot. I'll facepalm my own self for that one.

Salem's Lot is horrendously dull, it's more effective than Ambien.

At least the "sequel," A Return to Salem's Lot, is a hoot. Sam Fuller as a Nazi hunter turned vampire hunter. Beautiful.

[MJD64]

Exude caution dallywhitty, Impossible may very well have sold you to Tom Hardy.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by MJD64

Exude caution dallywhitty, Impossible may very well have sold you to Tom Hardy.

[Show spoiler]Harry Styles

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by MJD64

Exude caution dallywhitty, Impossible may very well have sold you to Tom Hardy.

Originally Posted by Impossible

[Show spoiler]Harry Styles

UGH. I don't know which is worse.

Please, Daddy, take me back.

Originally Posted by dissention

Salem's Lot is horrendously dull, it's more effective than Ambien.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Salem's Lot > The Stand > It.

Strangely it's the opposite way round if we're talking about the novels.

Taking The Stand out of the equation (I've read the novel but haven't seen the movie) I'm the exact opposite.

Salem's Lot the novel fairly solidly edges out It the novel but it's no contest when it comes to the movies: Salem's Lot is really hard for me to take seriously where I found the It miniseries (which I watched for the first time a year or so ago so) surprisingly solid.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by octagon

Taking The Stand out of the equation (I've read the novel but haven't seen the movie) I'm the exact opposite.

Salem's Lot the novel fairly solidly edges out It the novel but it's no contest when it comes to the movies: Salem's Lot is really hard for me to take seriously where I found the It miniseries (which I watched for the first time a year or so ago so) surprisingly solid.

Salem's Lot was my favourite King book for ages... until I finally read It and The Stand.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Salem's Lot was my favourite King book for ages... until I finally read It and The Stand.

This is one those times where it's very easy to agree to disagree. There's nothing to argue with there.

[shinobipopcorn]

Originally Posted by MJD64

I agree with you that a film need not be especially violent or horrific to be effective. I've extolled the virtues of several PG-13 horror films being more chilling than many of their R-rated competition. As I posted, I've not seen the mini-series nor read the book but as someone who read a lot of King's early novels, I couldn't imagine most of them being done as PG films or watered down TV adaptations. It all depends on the material, and from what I've heard from friends who have read the book, it sounds as if an R-rated film would best convey King's intentions (and some have ventured that even with a restricted rating, there are elements of it that will never make it to the screen).

I've yet to read the entirety of the book, but the TV movie leaves out the scenes which would necessitate an R rating at the time, such as the brutal attack on the gay men and the notorious the sexual scene. The ending is also slightly different concerning the town, but it's mostly budgetary (and if they tried to use minatures, that would look horrible). As far as adaptations go, it's fairly spot on but I suppose it could use some improvement. Like Bev's partner getting hit by a truck.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by tob

Not nostalgia just a performance that be hard to follow don't you think.

No. Everyone said the same thing about Connery as Bond, or Nicholson/Hamill as the Joker, and look how that turned out. Other shave done just as well, but differently. Different takes fit different styles and tones. Nicholson's Joker was great for Burton's batman, but not for Nolan's. Just like Curry's Pennywise doesn't fit the style and tone of the new film, from what I've seen so far anyway. People seem to think "acting" or "performance" is singular, but it's all within a context.

[javy]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Salem's Lot > The Stand > It.

Strangely it's the opposite way round if we're talking about the novels.

What about the Tommyknockers? I haven't seen it since the miniseries days. I seem to remember it being creepy.

I read a book once...