Stephen King Fans discussion
Movies & TV shows
>
IT Chapter 1 (2017)
In the book they tore Georgie's arm off but left his body behind. In the movie they took his arm and then took his body.
LOL sorry sometimes I don't always explain my self properly, it comes with age
I agree that leaving Georgie's body behind would have made more sense. I think they didn't because then when Bill "sees" him, he can really believe it's him, not his ghost, or spirit, but him.
I think a big problem some people have is they get too caught up in "it has to be just like the book!" and they refuse to allow themselves to enjoy it if it's changed. I personally think you do yourself a disservice if you walk into a theater with that attitude. Sure, it should tell the base story and should capture the basic feeling and theme of the book it's adapting, but it's called 'adapting' for a reason. And I think that's where 'It' works, it adapted everything that NEEDED to be adapted. Did it change things? Sure it did. But unless those things are detrimental to the story, it shouldn't matter for the whole work.A lot of people are mad about Bowers. I can understand that. Personally though? I'm not at all. While I personally think it's a stretch at this point to have 'It' help him survive and get him out of the sewers, it could still be done. Or, they could have a plan to have something else take Bowers place in chapter 2 to make it more believable and to help keep repetition in the sequel down to a minimum. I'm open to either thing at this point. My biggest issue in this film is the way they treated Mike and Ben in terms of characterization, and I greatly fear how it ends up affecting the next film, but for current intents and purposes, it works in chapter 1 as a whole and can be forgivable for the single film in terms of the story.
I also agree though Georgie's body shouldn't have been taken. It sets up the one single issue I feel like that kind of messes with Pennywise as a whole in terms of novel to movie accuracy, but even this I can kind of mental gymnastics my way to an explanation that works well enough for the movie. I just feel like it takes away Bill's agency a bit and weakens him, and as a whole weakens everyone else.
I liked the movie but I had my hang ups. I loved the mini- series and saw it multiple times before ever reading the book. I'm a fan of all 3 adaptions and appreciate their differences. My hangup on the 2017 version was the character development and overall losers club cohesiveness. There wasn't enough time spent exploring their relationships. It moved too quickly for me. Without the dam, I felt like it left a lot of their bonding moments out. Mike felt shoe horned in and never a real part of the group. Bev felt more like the groups sex object than the sling shot wielding, age appropriate, heroine she should be, and turning Ben into a NKOTB fan was just silly. Poor kid is already fat, now you got him as the butt of boy band jokes.
This movie broke several records and is being received very well by the public so I don't think the opinions are as divided as they seem on this forum. It was very well done and I for one liked it very much. I felt like the essence of the book was captured in this adaptation and any problems I have are minor. I would love to go see it again in the theater and I think a lot of folks are seeing it multiple times. I think the repeat viewers speak to the love of this version. With that said the mini series version is still available to those that prefer it and for the purist there is still the book. I think some of the big changes were necessary to make the audience feel a connection to this movie. This is a coming of age story and the kids are not only battling a nightmare but they are learning that not all adults can be trusted and that they can be monsters too. Even though they changed some things I think that those themes comes across in the film. I can't wait for Chapter 2!
Karen B. wrote: "The bottom line for me is that Stephen King himself likes the 2017 version."Exactly Karen. He was always very disappointed with the mini series and understandably so.
ElleEm wrote: "This movie broke several records and is being received very well by the public so I don't think the opinions are as divided as they seem on this forum. It was very well done and I for one liked it ..."Exactly Elle. The change were necessary to give the subject a much more modern feel. I always felt the Mummy and Werewolf were too conventional but fitted the 50's. In the mini series those two fears shown for Stan and Richie were to be quite frank woefully represented.
Their more modern fears were shown as the film is set in the 1980s and are much scarier and will appeal moe to a modern audience.
As explained earlier SK has consulted throughout Parts 1 and 2 so if he appreciates the changes made and has ultimately agreed them. then that is good enough for me.
I will say again the MS was very average and barely adequate in 1990. Now it looks absolutely awful and Tim Curry about as scary as the clown in Toy Story 3.
I finally got to see the movie! IT was awesome! I was frightened and laughed at the same time! I was very pleased with the adaptation. Now I'm reading the book again while I wait for Part 2.
ElleEm wrote: "This movie broke several records and is being received very well by the public so I don't think the opinions are as divided as they seem on this forum. It was very well done and I for one liked it ..."Couldn't have said it better!
Matthewcross87 wrote: "forgot to mention at least i didnt read it before the movie and had my eyes and mind burned like my friend . least i can read it now and have that i sore of a movie deleted from my mind whilst read..."At least there's always the book! Although reading the book will expose a lot of left out things and changes made for the miniseries as well. I do agree the miniseries strayed much less from the novel.
Outside of adhering to the book, what did you think of Pennywise as a scary monster? While I'm a big fan of Curry's Pennywise, I really enjoyed Skarsgaard as well.
Kimberly wrote: "I finally got to see the movie! IT was awesome! I was frightened and laughed at the same time! I was very pleased with the adaptation. Now I'm reading the book again while I wait for Part 2."That's precisely my reaction as well. I've seen IT twice, and I would happily see it again given the chance. I was reading yesterday that the blu-ray released at the end of the year will include a director's cut with around 15 extra minutes. Can't wait for that either!
Nate, I think that Tim Curry's Pennywise was really well done for the time that the mini-series came out. Today, audiences are more jaded and have seen more, so it takes more to scare them. I think Skarsgard was the perfect Pennywise for today.Obviously people will like what they like and their opinions can't be swayed, and neither should they, but if you look at both adaptations through the lens of the time they were made, they both fit the bill.
I loved the 2017 movie and will probably see it again this weekend.
ElleEm wrote: "This is a coming of age story and the kids are not only battling a nightmare but they are learning that not all adults can be trusted and that they can be monsters too."You're echoing a review I saw elsewhere and I think that's a great point: If you approach the movie as a coming of age tale with some horror elements, it works better than approaching it as a straight horror film. That's always been the draw with King's writing for me; he does much better telling stories about people than he does telling ghost stories.
Just got back from seeing the movie and frankly I was a bit disappointed and I went in believing I would really enjoy it. The biggest disappointment for me was that they got rid of Pennywise with no allusion to the real monster which is who the kids really dealt with in the end. But loved loved Skarsgaard as Pennywise. Now I thought I could not like anyone as much as Tim Curry but Skarsgaard was perfect! I will write more as I let it sink in. Interesting point about the Miniseries...In the book and I believe in the miniseries there are references to the kids call Bill, "Big Bill" but Brandeis was not big.
The reference to big bill was not necessarily a reference to his size it is more I think to his personality.
Last point before I shuffle off from the discussion...If this movie, IT (2017), is such a great adaptation of the book, as everyone claims, why are Amazon selling an IT: film tie-in edition of Stephen King's IT, in the run-up to its release (as of 25th July)?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/147366694...
I can't check if it's different to the original, because the "Look Inside" facility brings up the 2016 paperback edition.
I'm going to see the movie this afternoon.
Paul wrote: "Last point before I shuffle off from the discussion...If this movie, IT (2017), is such a great adaptation of the book, as everyone claims, why are Amazon selling an IT: film tie-in edition of Ste..."
I'm not sure I understand your question. Often when a book is adapted to the screen a new "film edition" is released because they know people will be buying the book because of the movie. They don't change the actual novel, only the cover.
Paul wrote: "Last point before I shuffle off from the discussion...If this movie, IT (2017), is such a great adaptation of the book, as everyone claims, why are Amazon selling an IT: film tie-in edition of Ste..."
Erm, absolutely no idea what point you are making here or what it has to do with the quality of the film. Amazon are selling the book with a cover that ties in with the movie in the hope of driving sales on the back of its success. So what?
I just got back from watching the movie and it wasn't to bad. Yes they took liberties with it but the basic story was there. The most glaring flaw I found is that they killed off Patrick Hockstetter to soon
Esse wrote: "ElleEm wrote: "This is a coming of age story and the kids are not only battling a nightmare but they are learning that not all adults can be trusted and that they can be monsters too."You're echo..."
Spot on. I agree.
Agree Linda and Matthew but lets see Part 2 before prejudging it. Both Henry and Patrick will appear in the sequel I am certain. However in the mini series Patrick didn't even appear and Henry was very underwhelming. The new movie didn't get the pure evil of Bowers and his father in the novel but were damn close and we have Part 2 to come.
Matthewcross87 wrote: "sorry but il be waiting to see part 2 on a friends blu ray i won't be waiting another £10 on the monstrosity chapter 2"And that's ok, but some of us are very, very excited to see what they do with part 2.
I'll go see part 2 just to See what happens. Like I said before it wasn't to bad and there was some parts of the book as well.
I was disappointed but glad I saw it and am planning to see Chapter Two. It wasn't that bad as far as I am concerned. I am anxious to see what actors are chosen for the adults. I think I was disappointed because I had too high expectations but I still felt it was worth the money. (including the cost of the popcorn and the diet coke!)
Matthewcross87 wrote: "no for a movie like it it was supposed to be great ,our expectations were supposed to be high . they failed and just to make money they split it half"They didn't split the film in half just to make money. They split it in half to give them the freedom to try and tell the story to the best of their abilities. You have such a strong hatred for this movie as it stands, do you honestly think it would be better if it tried to cram the adult part of the story in as well? Chapter 1 is only as good as it is as a movie because it focused on the children and left the story of the adults for later. I can't even imagine what would have been jumbled and left on the cutting room floor if they attempted to tell the entire story in one go. As for expectations being high, high expectations are the surest way to destroy a good film. I honestly think that's the problem you have here. You built up this giant masterpiece inside of your head which would have been impossible to fulfill, and because that wasn't lived up to, you feel the film is utter crap. I've been there, and had films ruined because of it. It's why I always try and keep my expectations in check for every film, so I can enjoy it instead of spending the entire time mentally tearing it down due to my own unfair bias.
Matthewcross87 wrote: "your wrong there mate there are 7 fantastic movies that thought up in three seconds that are 4 hours long and have the whole story in them that are based on books and they weren't cut in half"No. There really isn't. If they did the entirety of 'It' in a single film, it would be the exact same length (maybe another 15 minutes or so longer, but really, like that would help), have countless things missing, and feel rushed and contrite. Breaking it up in two films was the way to go here.
Matthew, I'm not sure why you think a single 4-5 hour film covering the whole book was ever going to happen. Cinemas woudn't touch it with a barge pole, and that's assuming any distributor would ever give the green light to it. Maybe Lord of the Rings should have come out as one 9-hour film rather than three films 'just to make money'.
Matthewcross87 wrote: "worng again lord of the rings were three seperate books the cinemas touched them with barge poles , the also touched the three hobbit movies , they also touched gone with the wind , not saying they..."You seem to be angry that It is split into two and that you think it should be one 4-hour film. Lord of the Rings is one story consisting of three parts, with the overall page count pretty much the same as It. Should Lord of the Rings have been condensed into one 4-hour film? I have a friend that works in cinema and I can tell you that they don't like 3-hour films, it equals fewer screenings and less money. Lord of the Rings was always going to be a blockbuster and as such can get away with it. The It movie is not in that category.
not ALL fans of the book thought the movie was bad. Yes there were parts that disappointed me but I still thought it was a good movie.
Matthewcross87 wrote: "also cinemas might not like 3 / 4 hours films but its really not up to them if the film industry are going to make films based on books they should do it right not hack the story line up until its ..."Well they do have a big say because if they decide they don't want to screen a bunch of 3-4 hour films then they don't have to. Then the makers have wasted millions making a film that cinemas don't want to screen. The word 'based' is important. The films are 'based' on the book, they are not replicating the book, as some things that work in a book won't work on the screen. The Godfather was a shade under 3 hours, nowhere near 4 and came out over 40 years ago, when people's attention spans were longer and there weren't as many films competing in cinemas. As for The Shining not being the kind of adaptation the film the fans want to see, you're probably in a minority there. There's a reason the Kubrick film is remembered and revered decades after being made, while the King-endorsed version is largely forgotten because it wasn't very good.
First off, if you're mad at what was cut from the first movie, you realize a dramatically larger version of the story would have been cut if it was crammed into a single movie right? We're literally getting two movies so that they tell a good version of the kids story as well as the adult story. Once all is said and done, we'll have two movies we can watch back to back to get the full effect in one sitting if desired. I'd much rather have to wait longer to be able to do that (while getting potentially two good movies I can watch stand alone or together if desired) then get a single movie which just touches the basic plot points.Secondly, NONE of these movies you're quoting as being 4 hours is anywhere near 4 hours. None of the LotR movies hit 4 hours theatrically. The longest was Return of the King, which is a whopping 40 minutes shy of hitting that 4-hour mark. That's not even to mention that even these were heralded as too long by a large number of people. As for the extended versions....yeah, a single one hit 4 hours, but here's the thing you seem to be forgetting, even these massive films removed content. If they couldn't put EVERYTHING from Lord of the Rings into over 9 hours of film, what hope could they ever have of fitting everything from It into a single movie?
I also find it interesting you complain about It being split into two movies because of 'money' yet mention the Hobbit movies as an example of long films released. The Hobbit movies are a classic example of movies affected by the desire to make money. They took a single book, added a ton of things not in the book, and stretched it out for three long movies. Why? Money. Yet to defend the length of these films, but despise the fact that It has been split into two films that make perfect thematic sense.
As for The Godfather, it's less than 3 hours long and the book is less than half the size of the novel It. Not really an apt comparison.
As Greg has mentioned, the theater industry has a heavy effect on the length of films, just like it has a heavy effect on the ratings of films. It's all about whether a film can land in the largest number of theaters possible, and get the biggest draw.
Matthew, you have to remember they are movie producers they don't understand anything taking more then 2 to 2 1/2 hours. God forbid a book taking weeks to months to read. If I remember rightly it wasn't just the movie he didn't like, He didn't really like the book that much either, I think he said it was one of his least favorite books. Hey we all have things we don't like.
LOL I hear you Matthew I grew up in the states and know all about the adverts. Good example is look at American football when was the last time you saw a game that is suppose to be 1hr and 15 long take 3 to 4 hrs. Between time outs and adverts it takes all day to watch a game.
I agree I wouldn't want to change your opinion as you are entitled to it. Besides if we all liked everything and had no differing opinions then it would be a very boring world. The best discussions are those that involve multiple opinions.
I aw the first movie, but I refused to watch the rest of them. The first one was not to bad but I didn't feel the story had anything left to follow up with after that. Four years ago I did a marathon watch of the Harry Potter movies, I watched them all in one day, I did have to take a three hr. break though I needed a nap in the middle. Long story behind that but not for here.
For me it just my age, I fell asleep the other day while writing a message on the computer LOL.
School does suck, but here is the crux of it, school is necessary to teach us how to learn, after we leave school we take what they taught us about learning and apply it to life in general, Once you leave school is when the learning really begins. I have forgotten almost everything I learned in school, but have learned more since I left then I have forgotten. I know it sounds contradictory but it is true.Think about everything you learned in school, now how much of that is used on a daily basis. Three things come to mind, 1. Reading. 2. Writing. 3 Basic Math. After that how much of what you learned in school do you use on a daily basis?
If it was just released on DVD it wouldn't make as much as it would if it was also released in theaters. That's why it's the intention of filmmakers of these kinds of movies to do it in a way where it gets a wide release. That way they get the movie sales, as well as dvd sales. You're right in a way where obviously chapter 2 will be changed to a degree from the book. But I'm personally ok with that. I don't need an adaption to be 100% true to the source material so long as it stands up to the core theme of the book. I feel like when it comes to chapter 1, they did that with the children's side of the story. Are there things I dislike about it when it comes to what was changed? Heck yes there is. But I can forgive a large portion of it because they held onto the core of the story and what the story was about. So all in all as a film version of It, it holds up to me. I like being able to have these versions to be able to consume based upon what I'm looking for. Chapter 1 is perfect to me if I'm craving It and only have a couple hours to spare. If I want something more in depth, I have the book I can dive into. That's what matters to me, and I myself don't want to let simple changes that don't detract from the whole to ruin the entire experience. But I mean hey, that's just me.
Honestly, when it comes to the adverts that's a whole different thing. That's not a theater issue, that's a television issue. I agree there tends to be too many ads, and you can pretty much expect at least a half hour of ads to be inside of a movies running time when it's on television. Just kind of how it is in the states. To a degree I'm used to it so it doesn't phase me, but it's also why I try and watch a dvd or a streaming service instead of television whenever I can.
Ah the Harry Potter movies.....one of these days I really should try and finish those.
I just saw It for the third time and still liked it. Probably more this time around because I have let go of the idea that it has to BE the book. The relationships were there and the menace of It came across.I for one am very happy they split it into two chapters. I can't wait to see who plays the Losers as adults. If they do half as well as these kids, it will be terrific.
The actors portraying Bev and Ben were my favorites.
Tim, I thought adverts were the norm when I was growing up in the states. It wasn't until I joined the Air Force and went over seas that I realized it is not the norm, well not to the extent that they take it to in the states. Yes they have adverts in England as well but where you will get 30 min of adds in a 90 min film here you will get 9 min of adds. Yes you must see the Harry Potter films they are well good is one way of putting it. The first three follow the books fairly well but to much is cut our of the rest of the films but still follow the feel of the story if you know what I mean.
Kandice wrote: "I just saw It for the third time and still liked it. Probably more this time around because I have let go of the idea that it has to BE the book. The relationships were there and the menace of It c..."Wow, three times! I can't wait to see it again but will probably buy the DVD. I had some problems with the movie but they were very minor. Some of the changes make sense and some didn't but maybe they will make sense when Chaper 2 comes out. I am really looking forward to seeing who will play the adults as well.
Kandice wrote: "I just saw It for the third time and still liked it. Probably more this time around because I have let go of the idea that it has to BE the book. The relationships were there and the menace of It c..."I'm hoping to see IT a third time as well. The acting is an embarrassment of riches and I can't pick a favorite. Eddie's role blew me away even more the second time. Every scene is so packed that I think IT is a movie that begs to be rewatched. I'm a huge fan of the book (been rereading during the last week while seeing the movie twice) and movie and love how they work together.
I think the box office success of IT is pretty amazing. A lot of people seem to be enjoying it. And holding up HP as a model of novel adaptations is an interesting choice. Highly popular but extremely polarizing among fans due to deviations from the books.
If it 'didn't make it through' the rating systems, they will cut as much as they need to to make it through the rating system and then release an uncut version later. This happens time and time again in the horror genre. That's because it's known that you will make more money by putting into the theater before the dvd than you will by stand-alone dvd sales. Think of it this way, say 1000 people buy the dvd without a theatrical release. That's 1000 sales, assuming for this scenario that rentals just aren't a thing. Now consider it gets released into the theater first, and 1000 people go and see it. Of those 1000 people, say 200 like it enough to go and see it a second time. Now say only 750 people of that 1000 like it enough to purchase it after release. Not as good as a blind release, but they still made more money. It's just like that, but on a much grander scale.Hate to say this and begin a new argument man, but there were things changed in the Harry Potter movies. In fact back when they were being made the biggest criticism of the first two films was that they followed too closely, and people didn't start to declare their love for the films in earnest until the third when they began to drop things and add others. I'll give you it may not be on a grand scale, but it did happen. In fact, I've never finished the 5th movie because I had to leave early when I first watched it, and once I heard they removed Harry's tantrum for the movie I saw no reason the last bit I had left. It's just what happens with adaptions, things get dropped, and other things get tossed in.
I know what you mean Mrbrooks. I've actually watched most of all of them, just haven't been able to bring myself to finish the final one. I tend to just pick the books back up when I need a dose of HP.
The box office success is phenomenal, and I'm excited to see how the entertainment industry reacts in terms of what they decide to produce in terms of horror for the future. IT has pretty much broken every record I know of that it could have broken to date, and regardless of how one might feel about the movie itself, that's pretty incredible.
Matthewcross87 wrote: "coming from.a guy who's read the harry potter books 15 times and seen the movies countless times there's really not that much missing from them . but now my comparison in changes from book to film ..."But that's the thing, there were changes and things missing. But because the tone and core of the books is there, most (not all) people forgive that fact.
That would be pretty much the biggest issue when it comes to the movie/novel comparison. And I agree it sucks, and if you're gonna be a purist it's a massive stroke against the film. But if you step away from that fact and look at it in terms of the movie itself.....it works, and people who never read the book have no idea this was something changed. As for chapter 2, of course he's gonna be a librarian. He's still gonna be the one who stays behind to gather them as adults, and what better way to gather information that might be needed against Pennywise than being inside a library all the time? (I do have issues with a potential rumour about chapter 2, but that's something of itself). I do think it's kind of interesting though that you're massively against Mike losing his status in the first one (which again, I admit sucks and pulled me out of the movie for a bit when I watched it), but are also against Mike now having that status in the next chapter. I'm sure you have your reasonings of course, just seems odd to me.
I think a large part of It's success in theaters is that the story is presented in a way that people having no relationship with the book can understand and follow the story. If you are financing a movie you simply have to take that into consideration. Even if every single fan of King's books saw the movie once, it wouldn't cover all the non-readers who will see it, sometimes more than once, because they liked and understood it without reading first.It's just a fact that there are less real readers around than movie lovers. Then throw in the fact that It is a horror novel and the number drops again. You have to appeal to the larger audience while also trying not to piss off the pure book fan. Obviously they failed in that regard as far as Matthewcross87 is concerned, but I've been a Stephen King fan for over 30 years and I was satisfied.
Stephen King loved the new movie and that's good enough for me. The film was great and I loved IT. Definitely prefer to the mini series which has dated horribly. At the end of the day most films that are adapted from SK novels are poor but to me IT bucked that trend. It was faithful to the novel but the changes were necessary to modernise the text. But IT most importantly to me captured the beautiful friendship The Losers have with each other. I cant wait for the DVD with an extra 15 minutes to come out and for Part 2 to be released next year. I have seen the new film three times and that DVD will be worn out within a month!
Stephen King Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
It (other topics)It (other topics)
It (other topics)
It (other topics)
Sorry mrbooks, not sure what you mean when you say they should have left Georgie behind. I might be being a bit thick