Stephen King Fans discussion
Movies & TV shows
>
IT Chapter 1 (2017)
message 301:
by
Linda
(new)
Sep 25, 2017 08:10AM
what you say is all well and good Steve but remember this at the time the mini series was scary. Since then we aged and grown and are different people now. What scared us twenty years ago doesn't scare us anymore. I'm not saying the mini series is perfect yes it has some serious flaws but let's be fair so does the 2017 version. While I'll admit that starsgaad did a fantastic job as Penny wise I still stand by Tim Cirrus pretrial. Now that I've had my rant I'll let you continue arguing among yourselves.
reply
|
flag
While I agree that the new film is far superior, you have to factor in the vast budget difference between the two and the fact that one was for a TV audience at a time when TV was far less daring than it is today. There was a lot that didn't work in the mini series but they did get some things right and, nostalgia aside, it still has enough about it to warrant a rewatch now and then.
I think the reason why I didn't really care for the mini series is because I was 20 when it came out and it didn't scare me. I was already a huge fan of the book by this time even though I don't think I understood the multiple layers of the story, I did understand that the mini series didn't capture what I was looking for.
One TV adaptation that doesn't get mentioned too often is Salem's Lot. Shows what you can be done with the right people in charge (Tobe Hooper) and it would also have had a comparitively tiny budget. I've always wondered what Tobe Hooper might have done with an It adaptation.
ElleEm wrote: "I think the reason why I didn't really care for the mini series is because I was 20 when it came out and it didn't scare me. I was already a huge fan of the book by this time even though I don't th..."I just realized that its been about 27 years since the mini series...the same time for IT to come back....every 27 years from now...
Good to have you back, Kenneth! I hope you stick around. :)Greg wrote: "One TV adaptation that doesn't get mentioned too often is Salem's Lot."
That's one I'd like to see, but it seems a bit difficult to get my hands on it. Seems like it'd be fun to see the same actor playing characters from two different SK books.
Esse wrote: "Good to have you back, Kenneth! I hope you stick around. :)Thank You :)....
Esse wrote: "Good to have you back, Kenneth! I hope you stick around. :)Greg wrote: "One TV adaptation that doesn't get mentioned too often is Salem's Lot."
That's one I'd like to see, but it seems a bit dif..."
I'm surprised you're having trouble getting hold of it, I thought it was readily available. They have several copies in my local supermarket for the very reasonable price of £5.
Greg wrote: "I'm surprised you're having trouble getting hold of it, I thought it was readily available."I don't have a way to play DVDs anymore so I'm looking for a way to stream it. I think that's what's making it difficult.
Greg wrote: "One TV adaptation that doesn't get mentioned too often is Salem's Lot. Shows what you can be done with the right people in charge (Tobe Hooper) and it would also have had a comparitively tiny budge..."Top shot Greg.
Its not the budget that makes the mini series bad. It is the shocking acting and direction. Salems Lot and The Stand would have both had the same low budget as the mini series and yet were infinitely better.
ElleEm wrote: "I think the reason why I didn't really care for the mini series is because I was 20 when it came out and it didn't scare me. I was already a huge fan of the book by this time even though I don't th..."Very much the same Elle. I was 21 and was very very disappointed. I had heard many people say Tim Curry captured Pennywise but I didn't think that in any shape or form.
I will agree that 'Salem's Lot was an amazingly eerie and frightening movie for it's time and especially since it was shown on network television.
Esse wrote: "Greg wrote: "I'm surprised you're having trouble getting hold of it, I thought it was readily available."I don't have a way to play DVDs anymore so I'm looking for a way to stream it. I think tha..."
iTunes has IT in HD for purchase, at least in the US store. It's been on sale lately.
Nate wrote: "iTunes has IT in HD for purchase, at least in the US store. It's been on sale lately..."Thanks, Nate! I hadn't thought to check iTunes.
No prob! It's a great transfer, and really cool to watch in HD.
Kandice wrote: "I will agree that 'Salem's Lot was an amazingly eerie and frightening movie for it's time and especially since it was shown on network television."I make it a point every October to watch the original Salem's Lot on DVD. I wasn't impressed with the remake but I do watch it sometimes, just not every year.
Kenneth wrote: " I make it a point every October to watch the original Salem's Lot on DVD. I wasn't impressed with the remake but I do watch it sometimes, just not every year. ..."I never watched the remake. I can't let anyone replace David Soul in my mind's eye.
Kandice wrote: "Kenneth wrote: " I make it a point every October to watch the original Salem's Lot on DVD. I wasn't impressed with the remake but I do watch it sometimes, just not every year. ..."I never watched..."
That's so true...Starsky and Hutch for ever will remain a classic.
Steve wrote: "Greg wrote: "One TV adaptation that doesn't get mentioned too often is Salem's Lot. Shows what you can be done with the right people in charge (Tobe Hooper) and it would also have had a comparitive..."Hi Steve, while I agree Salem's Lot was an excellent mini series, I think they could have done better with the stand, there are some sections in there that are just to corny for my liking. It wasn't the best and would love to see this remade properly. I am a huge fan of the book as I consider it one of SK's master pieces.
Kenneth wrote: "Kandice wrote: "I will agree that 'Salem's Lot was an amazingly eerie and frightening movie for it's time and especially since it was shown on network television."I make it a point every October ..."
I have never seen the remake you can't beat what I consider perfection or as close to perfect as you can get with the original.
Matthewcross87 wrote: "i find all the acting far superior the mini series. instead of constant swearing and jokes the kids did in the movie the kids had far better lines , more plot from what they said and bill kept he's..."The acting was far superior in the mini series? Really Matthew? Seth Green and Brandis apart, the children were awful. Bev in the mini series was truly awful compared to 2017 whos performance was outstanding/
The kid who plays Eddie in 2017 was excellent. Mini series? Hopeless.
I say again, it is not the effects I am referring to. The mini series is let down by poor acting exemplified by Richard Thomas who is outshone by his ponytail. The director didn't help either.
Tim Curry was average. If he was so good why didn't he do better movies than Home Alone 2 and Congo?
And to say you wanted to se more of the mini series. I think it dragged on way past 3 hours.
I don't think we will ever AGREE Matthew but to say the acting in the mini series was better than the 2017 movie is quite absurd!
I rather liked the Eddie of the miniseries Steve he was as I pictured him to be.
Is IT really worth your time to compare the miniseries and this new movies version. To put IT bluntly; why should anyone try to position one film against the other? I am very well aware of the many flaws that exist in the 90’s miniseries. Instead, I would rather challenge everyone to appreciate all three medias as they are; three distinct bodies of work, IT the book, IT the miniseries and IT the movie. Muschietti’s adaptation of IT is not a remake of the 1990 miniseries. Calling IT a remake suggests that his version is utilizing the miniseries as its source material, but as many of us know, the real source material is the 1986 novel written by Stephen King. Also, nostalgia is a powerful emotion and it can come into play when a film we cherish from our younger days is positioned as a remake, which it was not. Additionally, IT the new movie was far better than anyone anticipated at the box office; the we jump to try and compare the two. However, we shouldn’t be comparing anything since they were created in different eras, under different circumstances, with drastically distinct resources, and with a different medium.
September 6, 2019...IT #2...hope its a great as the movie part 1...
Kenneth wrote: "Is IT really worth your time to compare the miniseries and this new movies version. To put IT bluntly; why should anyone try to position one film against the other? I am very well aware of the many..."Well said Kenneth I agree completely all three are different so what if you enjoy the 90 mini series that's fine if you like the 2017 movie that's fine, but we all love the book.
mrbooks wrote: "Kenneth wrote: "Is IT really worth your time to compare the miniseries and this new movies version. To put IT bluntly; why should anyone try to position one film against the other? I am very well a..."I'm with you on this Mr. Books, but FYI all my non-reader friends who have not and probably will never read the book are telling me that they LOVE the movie. So, for that audience, this is a great experience. Most of these guys are too young to know of or experienced the mini-series, so they see this as another testimony to the greatness of King, that he could inspire a movie that, to this generation, is really great.
Kenneth wrote: "Is IT really worth your time to compare the miniseries and this new movies version. To put IT bluntly; why should anyone try to position one film against the other? I am very well aware of the many..."My model for this kind of argument (book vs movie) believe it or not, is good old Walt Disney. I picked up a copy of the novel Pinnochio a few years ago, and it's nothing like the movie. They took the story and made it CINEMATIC - more visual, expanded characters, etc. Yes, we're fans of King, but by the rules of cinema at least, there's nothing wrong with massaging a story or a book until it fits another medium. That's one of the reason's I have no problem with Kubrick's The Shining.
>
Well they are preaching to the coir as we already know how great the man is. Even a non reader has probably seen at least one or more of his films without knowing it. No matter how young they are I am betting the majority of them have seen or heard of the Green Mile. A book and Movie that in my eyes will never be beat, well at least not by anyone other then Stephen King. I would really love to see a serious director and producer attack the Stand in a serious way. I mean the mini series was ok but it was not what I would really call a serious attempt at the book it's self. (personal Opinion please no attacks on this score) LOL
Thank you both Nick and Mr. Brooks; looks like I hit the nail on the head. As far as the shining I enjoyed all three mediums; book, mini-series and the Movie for each had its strengths.
Are you sure there is a mini series of the shining. Please clarify this for me because I'm very confused.
I've kinda skimmed some of this thread since I last posted (yikes!) and something that stuck out to me was that the movie didn't have everything and some changes felt like it was geared more towards newcomers. I'll be entirely honest here, that's EXACTLY right. I don't see that as being a bad thing though. The book has some pretty insane things inside of it that is hard to compress and understand in such a short time frame. So to combat that, they restructured it so that they could tell the story of the children in a way that could be understood and enjoyed by EVERYONE. Because you see, making bigger budget horror movies is always a risk. You just don't normally get as much money from R rated flicks, and a lot of R rated horror ends up fairly niche and brings in less bucks. So doing it this way helps ensure it'll make the money needed to go ahead with part 2, where now they can inject it with what's missing. Frankly these next two years can't pass fast enough for chapter 2 to me.
Yes 1997 TV mini series check it out on the IMDB, it stared Stephen Weber and Rebecca De Mornay
Linda wrote: "Are you sure there is a mini series of the shining. Please clarify this for me because I'm very confused."There was a mini-series with Rebecca DeMornay as Wendy and Steven Weber as Jack.
Linda wrote: "Are you sure there is a mini series of the shining. Please clarify this for me because I'm very confused."Yes there is Linda starring Rebecca de Mornay
Tim wrote: "I've kinda skimmed some of this thread since I last posted (yikes!) and something that stuck out to me was that the movie didn't have everything and some changes felt like it was geared more toward..."Spot on Tim. The 2017 movie was modernised to appeal to a wider audience in consultation with Stephen King. It doesn't change the story drastically other than replacing Mike with Ben as the historian which allows the viewer to see the hatred and racism towards Mike from the Bowers.
I am fed up arguing Matthew so I wont continue but don't accuse me of lecturing people and I didn't want the mini series to exceed 3 hours because it was BLOODY AWFUL!
Stick in the past with Tim Curry and let us enjoy both parts of a vastly superior modern movie with a genuinely scary Pennywise. Skarsgard actually acts as an evil being rather than Curry's impression of a jaded circus clown with a booze problem.
Going to go see the movie again this weekend and this time I'm going to keep an eye on the closeness to the source material and take some notes since my recollection was that it was very close just a few deviations. The first time was for pure entertainment and enjoyment which I was completely satisfied.
Kenneth wrote: "Going to go see the movie again this weekend and this time I'm going to keep an eye on the closeness to the source material and take some notes since my recollection was that it was very close just..."In addition for watching for that, keep your eyes open for the Easter Eggs that were just for us readers. Watchers only will miss them, or not understand, but I love that we were catered to in this way. There are lots of lists online.
Deyth wrote: "Part 2 of the movie is coming soon."Ooh, it's official! That's awesome!
Yep, scheduled release date of "Chapter Two" is 9/6/19.
Clifton wrote: "Yep, scheduled release date of "Chapter Two" is 9/6/19."Glad to hear it's official.
The two years will go so fast and before you know it we will be starting to chat about it in a positive way; well almost all of us...
I'm also very happy Part II got a green light. I am really looking forward to it.
I still would like to see Emily Rose as Bev.
Kenneth wrote: "I still would like to see Emily Rose as Bev."AMEN!
Ok saw IT again and I have a lot of notes. Bottom line a nice adaptation from the book.I'll work on typing up my assessment and will be presenting them here. Just be for warned of what I have is an in depth analysis and thus will be long so no complaints, thanks in advance for your agreement.
Would we complain, of course not we argue points of interest but never complain.
Kenneth wrote: "Ok saw IT again and I have a lot of notes. Bottom line a nice adaptation from the book.I'll work on typing up my assessment and will be presenting them here. Just be for warned of what I have is a..."
In general, I agree with that Statement so looking forward to your assessment.
Ok; here is my analysis on IT the movie and my comments with the alignment of the adaption of the book to the 2017 movie version. These are the facts as I see them that I bring forward. BTW; #1 at the box off again!First things first though; Stephen King's IT, the novel is around 1,139 pages, which encompasses the details of Derry with IT’s darkest days that are deliberated out across multiple time periods; split between two: 1957-1958 and 1984-1985.
The most immediate difference between the movie and the book is the time period. The movie has the young Losers Club cast growing up during the 1980s, complete with New Kids on the Block jokes, etc. Since “It-movie version” is Chapter One of the story, Chapter Two; 27 years later will now take place in the present day, which will be an interesting take on the classic king.
The opening scene detailing Georgie’s murder is almost spot-on with the book’s opening chapter, with one exception: In the movie, Georgie’s body is never recovered. However if I may interject a note on the 90’s mini-series; the opening there was with Carrianne, which made no sense at all. Therefore, an improvement was subsequently made.
There is a lot of Henry Bowers' story that was omitted from IT the movie; with some of it dealing with Bowers' feelings of intense homophobia, despite engaging in sexual activities with a gang member in the book. However, the most significant change is the relationship between Henry and his father; Butch. Not only do we not specifically see the abuse that Henry experiences at the hand of his dad, we did not see the racist, farm-owning crazy man as he is in the book. Instead, in the movie he is actually a member of the Derry Police Department, and winds up dying at his son's hand.
Patrick Hockstetter also appears in the movie, but he meets his end early on in the sewers, without any hint of his terrifying serial killer behavior that is described so chillingly in the book.
I’m ambivalent with Beverly Marsh. The characters persona was spot-on as a tough girl, but the movie script kind of turns Bev into a damsel-in-distress by allowing Pennywise to kidnap her as a means of luring the Losers into his lair, which she sees the deadlights and floats into a catatonic state. Until a kiss from Ben wakes her up; so why was this done? Bev was always brave enough to go into the sewers, she didn’t need to be taken there as bait. However, there was alot that was right-on. Such as Bev’s uncomfortable relationship with her father and the love triangle between Ben, Bill, and Bev was very much present throughout the show.
In the movie, Ben discovers via his library research that IT has been terrorizing Derry for many years, then shares his findings with the rest of the Losers Club. IT in the book has also been around for a long time but Mike is the one that makes the discovery; he finds out by looking at a book of antique photographs given to him by his father. Also, Mike Hanlon had a change with the fact that his vision of Pennywise involves the death of both of his parents during his early childhood. That vision is similar to what happens in the book as the fire that destroyed the Black Spot.
Another change was the fact that Maturin the Turtle, a character important to the mythos of the Stephen King universe, was nowhere to be seen in "IT's" the movie. In the book, Maturin informed young Bill Denbrough on how to defeat Pennywise, his sworn nemesis, via the ritual of Chud. However, in the movie, there is only a mention of turtles in the waters as well as a LEGO model of one in Georgie's room. Also, with this change comes a change in the defeat of Pennywise. In the book, Bill Denbrough learns about the Ritual of Chud from Maturin the Turtle. Thus, the Losers' Club helps defeat Pennywise, as their horror movie research has them firmly believing that Beverly's slingshot skills should kill the clown, courtesy of a silver dollar to the head. In the movie, however, the big showdown's result is a by-product of physical strength and the willingness to stand up to Pennywise.
In IT, the book; the bonding that Richie, Ben, Bill and Bev engage involves building a dam in the Barrens that is a precursor to Ben’s career as an architect. It's a project that eventually gets them into trouble with the law in the book. However, throughout their time in the Barrens in IT the movie their bonding was some cliff diving and swimming, but was definently felt in the movie.
Overall, despite these changes that I noticed, “IT” pretty much spot-on nails King’s classic with creating an atmosphere with one key element from the novel, which the 90’s mini-series failed to capture. The notion that young people are burdened with atoning for the injustices inflicted on them by the adult world.
As I always say; "onward and forward"....bring on Chapter 2!
Great synopsis. Overall the movie seems slightly more violent than the book to me ? But definitely less sexual .
Stephen King Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
It (other topics)It (other topics)
It (other topics)
It (other topics)
