Stephen King Fans discussion
Movies & TV shows
>
IT Chapter 1 (2017)
I really tried not going in with high expectations so I was only a little disappointed with it. My husband on the other side kind of enjoyed it but it doesn't replace the mini series in my eyes. I will buy DVD when it comes out so I can get the full impact of the movie.
Matthewcross87 wrote: "tim , if a movie is going to screw around with book and its charaters that much then it should be left alone as i said countless comments ago yes tiny changers are bound to be made like in harry po..."Well now that's the thing though, what constitutes a bad adaption is in the eyes of the viewer. There are plenty of people who LOVE Kubriks Shining and feel its one of the best adaptions made. There are others who loathe it. For me, while I do agree the issue of the two characters was negative, I just don't feel like it killed the entire thing. I found the rest of the movie held up really well against the novel with its tone and content, and if they had only given those lines to Mike where they belonged it would have been a damned near perfect adaption. Idk, I just feel like the rest of it was so good (minus the cliche reduction of Bev in the end) I just can't let the one single character misstep ruin it all in my mind.
Matthewcross87 wrote: "see the harry potter movies barley any thing changed from any of the books and theyre only 2 - 2hour 30min movies my point made books can be perfectly adapted"Matthew Please from the goblet of fire on they cut out so much of the story that it wasn't funny. A lot of people say what was cut wasn't germane to the central plot. but I will argue the point until the cows come home so to speak.
Ok I'm going to defend the Harry potter movies, they were pretty damn close to the books. I myself have watched those movies countless times as well as the books.
The did cover the main points of the book but if you look at them like the Goblet of Fire and the Order of the Phoenix you can see a lot cut out. In the Goblet of fire the totally skip out winky and the beginning of the school year I mean they didn't start out at private drive, they were at the Burrows, really. They totally skipped out Fred and George dropping the sweets and Mr. Weasley trying to help out and having to leave in a hurry. How about the twins being searched by Mrs. Weasley for the sweets she told them were banned. These are the minor points people feel aren't needed? Not minor in my book but I am the only one who seems to see it that way.
Really if they made the movies exactly like the movies they might as well all be mini series. Boy your expectations are way too high.
Not really, all the stories start out at Private drive, with a contentious departure. They start school with the sorting of ne pupils to cut that much out of the story in my eyes is unforgiveable. It is the same with the HalfBlood Prince, I was looking forward to Professor Dumbledore's confrontation with the Dursley's And where did the girl come from?
Linda wrote: "Really if they made the movies exactly like the movies they might as well all be mini series. Boy your expectations are way too high."And there you have the entire point lol. The HP films are good, and some of the best adaptions, and even THEY can't live up to some expectations when it comes to the 'needs to be perfect' aspect. You have a large portion of fans who hold different aspects as vital and important, and you just can't get to it all in a movie (barring shorter works of course). For instance for me, one of the most unforgivable things was at the end of Goblet of Fire Harry giving the twins his winnings was omitted. It was vitally important to things that happened in the future of the series, would have taken about 2 minutes tops to show, yet it wasn't included. It's just kind of the nature of the beast when it comes to adaptions, and why I always try and focus more on the tone and thematics than the other details.
You know Itasca wonder you like any movies at all. Thatscwhyvtheyvsayvthw books are always better. All this griping about movies that are in my opinion is satisfactory just irritates me to no end. Like I said if you want the movies to be just like the books they all should be mini series.
My question to you Mrbooks is what girl? The only girl that I can think that you may mean is Luna and she is one of their gang.
Linda wrote: "You know Itasca wonder you like any movies at all. Thatscwhyvtheyvsayvthw books are always better. All this griping about movies that are in my opinion is satisfactory just irritates me to no end. ..."To be fair I consider this more a discussion that just 'griping about movies'. And when discussing movies, there's always bound to be some who like it and some who don't. Nothing wrong with talking about why that is. There's also nothing wrong with discussing the flaws of a movie, even if you enjoy that movie. It's all pretty much just preference.
Linda wrote: "My question to you Mrbooks is what girl? The only girl that I can think that you may mean is Luna and she is one of their gang."
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the one girl in the very beginning of the 6th movie who flirts with Harry right before Dumbledore shows up.
To be entirely fair one can argue he doesn't flirt with her because he's awkward and is unable. But she most definitely flirts with him. Don't look for her in the book though, because that entire scene is a deviation from the book.
Matthewcross87 wrote: "lol what was true to the novel was changed drastically all through im halfway through watching a movie witch is prety much very true to his novel - the children of the corn remake and yes that is a..."You don't half exaggerate Matthew. Drastically all through? Poppycock. The changes were made in consultation with SK to modernise the text and were essential in respect of Richie and Stan to give it a more modern feel. Sorry to damage your ego but I respect Stephen King's opinion far more than somebody who struggles with punctuation and is very prone to exaggeration.
JENNY wrote: "I read IT back when I was in school, and I also watched the mini series. I just watched IT this weekend, and I loved it. I also liked that they split it into two chapters. It was extra special beca..."Exactly Jenny. People were expecting to be scared as they were when they watched the mini series (albeit they were probably 4 and scared by Scooby Doo. I spent the whole movie smiling and chuckling away. I thoroughly enjoyed it because I loved the book and fully appreciated the filmmakers stab at modernising text we all love and encapsulating the beautiful friendship the Losers have we each other. Direct hit in my eyes.
Steve wrote: "JENNY wrote: "I read IT back when I was in school, and I also watched the mini series. I just watched IT this weekend, and I loved it. I also liked that they split it into two chapters. It was extr..."I laughed so many times at Richie and Eddie, the way their characters were written really brought out the closeness of the group to me.
Tim wrote: "Matthewcross87 wrote: "tim , if a movie is going to screw around with book and its charaters that much then it should be left alone as i said countless comments ago yes tiny changers are bound to b..."Exactly Tim. I love The Shining by Kubrick but purely because it is a classic horror film but accepting the fact it is inherently different from the novel. The 2017 movie wasn't perfect but SK loved it and so did I.
I still don't get people's appreciation with the mini series. I watched it again a month ago after being disappointed with it in the early 90's. I didn't watch it as a mini series but as a movie when it came out in the UK.
The mini series I watched a month ago has dated horribly. The acting bar Brandis, Ritter, Seth Green and sometimes Curry is dreadful and the direction worse. The music is completely wrong for a horror film. It takes away all tension and the Stan and Mummy scene is reduced to farce by the soundtrack. There are several massive continuity issues. VERY important characters are missing, particularly Patrick and the sets clunky and bland.
Then on to Curry. His performance is fine for a PG mini series as it is almost slapstick clown in the circus. The only remotely scary moment is when Curry comes out of the Photo album Mikes holds. The rest of his scenes are at best mildly amusing and at the worst corny and cringeworthy.
Honestly watch the mini series again and contextualise it against the 2017 movie as I did last weekend. The mini series does not hold up well unless you are four. I think that's the trouble. People love the mini series as they saw it when they were very young. Watch it now and it is vey difficult to get all the way through without wanting to do something horrible to most of the child actors and Richard Thomas in particular.
Bill Skarsgard on the other hand gives a modern portrayal of one of literatures ultimate evil characters. His Pennywise was much more suited to my perception and visualisation of IT. Evil, sinister, psychotic, darkly humorous, threatening, powerful and yet vulnerable at the end.
Lets judge the whole version over the two parts and to me unless Part 2 is a complete turkey, the mini series should be locked away and never see the light again. Unless you want to show young actors how NOT to act and young Directors the pitfalls of being safe and bland.
I know Ben took over from Mike a little in the historical presentation of the story. However Mike already had his story arc and the 2017 film concentrated on the racism he experienced which also allowed us to see the true evil of the Bowers family. This film I felt captured very well King's consistent theme in his novels where the real monsters are very human. Eddie's Mum and Bev's Dad exemplifying this extremely well in my view.
Long live Skarsgard's Pennywise. Sorry Tim but yours just looks very lame and redundant in comparison.
As I have said 2017 It wasn't bad and I will wait for the 2nd chapter before I make my final decision. But I'll say this again the mini series was pretty spot on. Yes 2017 had Patrick Hockstetter but he was killed way too soon. The dam building should have been in the movie and Henry Bowers was taken out too soon. Although the clown was scarier this time around I still say Tim Currys adaptation is a classic of that era. That is said of so many films and tv shows of that time.
Linda wrote: "My question to you Mrbooks is what girl? The only girl that I can think that you may mean is Luna and she is one of their gang."In the half blood prince, the movie, when harry is in the Diner, the waitress approaches him and the talk her. It's not in the book though.
You know what is interesting is that both IT adaptations left out the clubhouse and the ceremony when Richie and Mike have the vision of ITs arrival. I can see leaving it out for the miniseries because effects budgets and abilities were low for TV, but this could be an awesome thing to show in the next movie. I also think while the miniseries is more faithful, it still leaves out a quite a bit of the book and changes things too such as the movie theater scene with the bullies.
As far as King's endorsement lending credibility or enjoyment, I find it does neither. It's his content and he can't very well go around bad-mouthing things, and whether or not he's a fan is not really important as his lists of his most favorite and least favorite novels he has written are way off the mark, lol.
I've been enjoying the hell out of this thread and I'm happy to be reading everyone's opinions, so I hope we can keep this up. I caution against bringing people's spelling or grammar into the discussion though as that is ad hominem and you never know what type of device people are using to communicate.
Either way, I love both versions and will likely watch them both repeatedly over the years.
Oh, and RE Harry Potter, I heartily agree with MrBrooks that the later movies especially are so changed as to be nearly unwatchable in spots. I don't even feel like Dumbledore was acting anything like Dumbledore in Goblet of Fire. All of his lines and scenes were altered in some way. I felt it a little more on track in Order of the Pheonix, but his scenes with Dolores Umbridge at the school were wholly fabricated for the movie for no reason I can surmise. I can't take in the movies right after a reread, but if I have at least a 6 month buffer I can enjoy them.
Steve wrote: "Tim wrote: "Matthewcross87 wrote: "tim , if a movie is going to screw around with book and its charaters that much then it should be left alone as i said countless comments ago yes tiny changers ar..."To answer your question simply, People love the Mini Series because it was the first attempt of making a book most of us consider a master piece into something visual.
I just finished reading the Harry Potter series yet again and I'm sure it's in the book. I defend the series of movies because it was awhile since I read the books and watched the movies so they were close enough to satisfy me.
Linda wrote: "As I have said 2017 It wasn't bad and I will wait for the 2nd chapter before I make my final decision. But I'll say this again the mini series was pretty spot on. Yes 2017 had Patrick Hockstetter b..."I loved the Movie, but I loved the mini series when it came out, To me it is not which one is better, it is the fact that they are trying to keep current a book that is one of the best books ever written. We are all familiar with the book so we can spot errors in the movie and the mini series. Yes they both have there flaws and it doesn't surprise me that this movie has raised the dander of some of his supporters. The only thing I can say is sit back and enjoy the ride. In the end it doesn't really matter what we think it is already done but it does make for so really lively discussions. Yes I know I am guilty of the same thing when it comes to Harry Potter. Some one pointed out an old saying. Pot Kettle black. Meaning you can't have it one way for one and another way for the rest. OK I am done rambling on now.
Linda wrote: "I just finished reading the Harry Potter series yet again and I'm sure it's in the book. I defend the series of movies because it was awhile since I read the books and watched the movies so they we..."It's not, the story in the Half-Blood Prince starts with harry at his desk reading for the umpteenth time a letter he got from Dumbledore. He wishes to discuss with Harry some important information and will call at his aunt and uncles hose. Although I haven't read it in a couple of years I remember this section vividly because when Dumbledore arrives he offers the Dursley's so oak matured Mead and the don't take it and the glasses keep hitting them on the head. And this is also the scene where we learn Harry has inherited Grimald place and creature.
Sorry I am a bit of a Potterhead...
Linda wrote: "I really tried not going in with high expectations so I was only a little disappointed with it. My husband on the other side kind of enjoyed it but it doesn't replace the mini series in my eyes. I ..."Sorry to be so late to this party, and also sorry that I didn’t read ALL of the extensive discussions that have gone before. I just saw IT and have to say I liked it very much. I don’t see how they could have intercut the new story with the old the way that King did in his book... not and told as much of the story as they did. They changed a few things, combined, transformed, simplified, made more visual. That’s what you have to do with movies. It’s a different medium – less internal monologue, more visual action. I think they stayed true to the SPIRIT of the book and the CHARACTERS. The casting is almost perfect. Mike isn’t as lean and mean as I had pictured him, but that’s a small point. Stuttering Bill was the exact kid that I saw in my mind as I was reading. I guess Crispin Glover (a la’ Back to the Future) is too old to play the adult Bill now, too bad. As for Bev, I saw her as younger, but there are lots of 13-year-olds as mature as she appeared to be, and she certainly played the role well.
I imagine the big disagreement will be about Pennywise. Here’s some heresy, I thought that the movie handled him almost better than the book did. He is never as omnipresent in the book in the clown persona as he is in the movie, not always part of all manifestations of IT, not always driving the action. Having RODAN show up just didn’t do it for me, and I always thought that the whole spider thing was an example of King’s inability to do the impossible and portray the ultimate evil. (Though it was nice that they at least gave a visual nod to IT’s insectile nature.) This cinematic adaptation worked far better for me than the Dark Man in The Dark Tower.
Bottom line to all of this... I really want to see the sequel.
I know this is about It, but I want to put in two cents about HP. I think the movies went downhill when Richard Harris died and Michael Gambon took over as Dumbledore. I think it's apparent in the books that D loved Harry and Harris played that perfectly while still keeping the necessary reserve. Gambon came across as almost mean and I think that changed the overall feel of movies 3-8.Just my two cents.
I cant wait for Part 2 as well. If you haven't seen the mini series recently watch it again as I did last month. It looks truly awful and the soundtrack is simply awful. The 2017 movie is far from perfect but as a visualisation of my favourite novel MILES better than the 1990 TV mini series.To reiterate Bill was far much more like IT in his many guises and how I visualised Pennywise from the book. Look at Tim Curry's version again. It is toecurlingly corny and ineffectual.
I am not going to respond to you Matthew in full as you clearly didn't read my post. I liked Kubrick's The Shining as a HORROR FILM but appreciating the fact it is a very poor representation of the novel by Stephen King. All that I have read on here, on the internet and from FaceBook pages is that people liked the mini series when they were very young. However the vast majority agree that it has not aged well at all.
Kandice wrote: "I know this is about It, but I want to put in two cents about HP. I think the movies went downhill when Richard Harris died and Michael Gambon took over as Dumbledore. I think it's apparent in the ..."Interesting point, Kandice. That is one aspect that really bothers me, especially with Dumbledore shouting to silence the students, and grabbing Harry and shouting at him when his name comes out of the Goblet. That totally undercuts Dumbledore because they are actions he would never take because he would not ever have to shout or intimidate or physically get in anyone's face. Not only would never have to, he would never choose to do so. Ah well, I still enjoy HP movie marathons with my son, as long as I haven't reread the books too recently, lol.
Nick wrote: "Linda wrote: "I really tried not going in with high expectations so I was only a little disappointed with it. My husband on the other side kind of enjoyed it but it doesn't replace the mini series ..."Nice summation, Nick, and I agree with most. I think that while the sequel will be the more difficult film to make, it also has the chance to be even better and more intense. I like your comment on how things were combined and simplified...there are a few events that I thought to myself, well, that represents this, and so on. Such as Bev in the movie and her attack against IT, obviously was a nod to her role in the book at Neibolt.
And I'm seriously overjoyed that the filmmakers chose to focus on the house on Neibolt street. That house is one of King's great creations and was excellent on screen, and was a big miss from the mini-series.
Matthewcross87 wrote: "yes watch the mini series it at q good price on blue ray it looks brilliant all the colours in the barons really stands out acting is brilliant , has far more in common with the book"The HD transfer is awesome, and really makes rewatching even more enjoyable. Curry in HD is a real treat.
mrbooks wrote: "To answer your question simply, People love the Mini Series because it was the first attempt of making a book most of us consider a master piece into something visual.And I think there were some things the miniseries did better than the film. Mike's role as researcher/lighthouse keeper was much clearer and Eddie's hero worship of Bill was also clearer. I like the updating they did with Stan, but I do think what happens to him in the future (if it stays the same) isn't going to be as well connected. I think the miniseries was more subtle with the insidiousness of the adults' disregard toward the kids and that was a more effective illustration of It's relationship to Derry. And I think miniseries Bill was more compelling than movie Bill, particularly with regard to his motivations.
But the film was beautifully shot, had some great scares, and was a much more effective update than the Dark Tower film was. For me, they definitely have their own merits and if you could stick them in a blender, I'd be pretty happy with the outcome.
Nick wrote: "I imagine the big disagreement will be about Pennywise. Here’s some heresy, I thought that the movie handled him almost better than the book did."
That's an interesting take. Neither Pennywise really worked for me. I think you'll always lose something when translating an individual's fear for mass consumption, and it's really hard to pull off a character who's terrifying but also grotesquely humorous. When I watch it again I'll definitely give Pennywise more attention, since a lot of folks like this iteration better.
All I can is that I wanted to read the book again even though I just finished it last month. I bought a paperback from Amazon to see if it's any different from my digital copy.
Linda wrote: "All I can is that I wanted to read the book again even though I just finished it last month. I bought a paperback from Amazon to see if it's any different from my digital copy."Linda I'll be really curious to know if the paperback is any different. Please let us know.
Hell most things don't age well, so why should a mini series not age well either.
Steve wrote: "I cant wait for Part 2 as well. If you haven't seen the mini series recently watch it again as I did last month. It looks truly awful and the soundtrack is simply awful. The 2017 movie is far from ..."I agree Steve, movies and books are different media and you should consider them as different entities. I asked a non-reader friend, a successful director, about Kubrick's The Shining and he said: "It's a classic." I like it very much though I do have some problems, but they don't appear because of the difference between the story of the book and the story of the film. Every now and then a movie translates a book perfectly, but it takes a special kind of book with a special kind of content (The Shawshank Redemption.) As for the IT mini-series, I have recorded it and watched a little but I really didn't grab me so I never looked at much. Maybe should take a closer look.
I've always loved Kubrick's The Shining, but have never, ever considered it King's The Shining. Does that make sense? It's a genius movie all on it's own, but not a real adaptation.
Matthewcross87 wrote: "steve whats poppycock is that it seems that you cant accept peoples opinions and to thing that you think four your olds can watch the it mini series that's a bit sick consitidingbits rated 18 , you..."Matthew, you may be right about the mini-series format being best for Kings big novels. I thought it worked well in 11-22-63, and it works now on Mr. Mercedes. The thing that held me back from the Curry version was the production. They just weren't spending enough money on special effects for TV back then, so I never thought they could pull it off. As I say I'll take another look. I like Tim Curry as an actor, and a great actor can make up for millions of dollars in special effects. Even when special effects don't seem to be present... they usually are, polishing things up and making everything seem more real.
Mod
I thought the NKOTB stuff was hilarious! Possibly because I still secretly have a crush on Donnie Wahlberg. I didn't expect to laugh as much as I did while watching the film. I thought that was a great addition to the enjoyment I had watching.
Mod
I agree... this movie needs two films. There is no way they could've put this all in one film. I am a HUGE fan of the LOTR films. I was super excited about the Hobbit films. Which they decided to stretch out for hours and hours and up to three movies, all for MONEY. They wanted the same money LOTR brought in. All they did is ruin it. That should've been one short film. I am so glad IT wasn't like this. Hobbit is a great example Tim!
Mod
I have now watched the movie twice and I never do that. It was just as good the second time around. This time I noticed some creepy lady in the background during the library scene when Ben is looking at all the articles. HOW is no one talking about her?? That lady is
S C A R Y!
Rumor also has it that the Turtle will have a bigger role in Ch. 2.https://geektyrant.com/news/it-chapte...
Angie wrote: "I think I was also upset that Mike didn't get the time he deserved on film. I know he gets introduced later in the book to the group so I know that's why they introduced him later in the film. I he..."I've heard the exact same rumor. The reasoning I heard is because of the ritual of chud. Basically, it's taking the idea of the smokehole (the needing of outside substances to elevate the mind to be able to recognige the metaphysical to find a solution. Or something like that, I'm sure that's a terrible description of the intended concept) and pushing it into the movie in a way which could conceivably make sense to allow for the ritual of chud. The way I saw it described is that basically while Mike stays behind, he does research which leads him to using substances which allow him to discover the ritual of chud to finally put an end to Pennywise.
I've had time to mull this over, and honestly I have mixed feelings. On one hand, it feels horrifically cliched to me to have the single black character end up a junkie regardless of the reasoning behind it. On the other........I kind of like it. I mean sure, it's a massive twist and change to what was in the book, and I dislike what it does to Mike's character. But at the same time, I fully recognize that adding all of the mysticism and metaphysical aspects contained inside of the novel would be incredibly challenging to do in the first movie without alienating the average viewer. With this approach it allows for those apsects to be hinted at inside of the first movie, and then be fully explored in the context of the second. It feels kind of brilliant to me, because it not only allows for the content to be in the movies in a way which could prevent the general audience from being alienated, but it also helps to keep the two movies separate in content to prevent Chapter 2 from being a rehash of Chapter 1 with adults (which is currently my greatest fear for Chapter 2). So I guess I'm kind of in a position of "This could be awesome, please please please don't fuck it up".
Tim, I feel the same way you do, especially your closing sentence!
Kandice wrote: "I've always loved Kubrick's The Shining, but have never, ever considered it King's The Shining. Does that make sense? It's a genius movie all on it's own, but not a real adaptation."Absolutely.
Tim wrote: "Angie wrote: "I think I was also upset that Mike didn't get the time he deserved on film. I know he gets introduced later in the book to the group so I know that's why they introduced him later in ..."In spite of everything I've said, I think turning Mike into a Junkie would really hurt the story. His character, especially as an adult, is perfect. Damn!
Matthewcross87 wrote: "lol steve you say your not going to respond to me then alas you do words later , as i said Steve weve both got different opinions we both stick to them an were not going to change each others minds..."Not petty Matthew at all. You just didn't read my post properly.
Angie wrote: "I think I was also upset that Mike didn't get the time he deserved on film. I know he gets introduced later in the book to the group so I know that's why they introduced him later in the film. I he..."Yeah Angie I noticed her and was expecting her to morph into Pennywise. That was freaky as the old lady crawling across the ceiling in Exorcist 3.
The final comments on the subject as I am fed up defending the movie to all and sundry:-1. SK loves it and was involved and happy with the changes and modernisation of the story. For some of you to say that doesn't matter is incredibly arrogant. Its his vision not yours!
2. The 2017 movie has nearly nine out of ten on IMDB and the mini series a lowly 6.
3. The 2017 movie has SMASHED box office records. Proof indeed that it has appealed to wider audiences.
4. I believe we should all judge the 2017 version once we have seen ALL the parts. I keep hearing people say that they have missed important stuff but I have read drafts for the second part and lots are included. Also bits were cut from the movie including Henry Bowers being saved by IT in the deadlights.
I understand some have a nostalgic view of the mini series which I don't agree with at all because I have always felt it was dreadful in so many ways but one man/woman's meat is another man's poison.
Steve wrote: "The final comments on the subject as I am fed up defending the movie to all and sundry:-1. SK loves it and was involved and happy with the changes and modernization of the story. For some of you ..."
I agree with you 100% and in my humble opinion; the 2017 movie has shattered the box office records because it was that good. The characters brought to life what I felt reading the book, which was total fright from start to finish. I cannot wait for the next installment when it hits the theaters, which is another movie that the family and I will go to see and enjoy.
Stephen King Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
It (other topics)It (other topics)
It (other topics)
It (other topics)
However, I went into the theater not expecting a horror film. Yes, It's IT, yes it's scary, but I know the story. I know what to expect. So I went in ready to enjoy. And I did. I even laughed a couple of times.