Stephen King's IT (2017)

[The Joker]

Solid teaser even though I can't say I'm exactly stoked about the way Pennywise the Clown is coming across. Which is to be intentionally evil right from his mere appearance. Outside of that, the portrayal/voice with this new Pennywise will definitely be a huge factor in judging how this measures up with Tim Curry's version. Which I liked, as he visually looked just like any other clown, only until he started to display the evil within.

[Silver Nemesis]

Which I liked, as he visually looked just like any other clown, only until he started to display the evil within.

This. The new film might be ok, but I'm really sick of the whole 'creepy clown' thing. What made Tim Curry's Pennywise so effective was that he initially looked like a traditional friendly clown, not one of the lame over-the-top horror clowns that have flooded pop culture in recent years. Curry's Pennywise was a monster masquerading as something outwardly innocent.

He only discarded the friendly veneer when he'd lured his victim close enough for the kill.

By contrast, the new Pennywise looks like he's trying way too hard to be creepy. The dirty makeup, the downturned gaze glaring up through his eyebrows... there's no subtlety to any of it. No subversion of childhood innocence. He just looks like a straight up psycho trying to be scary.

But I'll reserve judgement for the time being. I generally avoid horror movie remakes, but since the first It adaptation was a television miniseries and not a feature film, I'm willing to give this one a shot.

[thecolorsblend]

I'm not necessarily opposed to remakes. What bugs me is when stuff that was already awesome gets remade. Why not remake Ishtar or Gigli or something? Try getting it right this time. But remaking stuff that was fine to begin with is just lame.

[johnnygobbs]

I'm not necessarily opposed to remakes. What bugs me is when stuff that was already awesome gets remade. Why not remake Ishtar or Gigli or something? Try getting it right this time. But remaking stuff that was fine to begin with is just lame.

Gigli was a bad idea from the start, and the same arguably applies to Ishtar.  But I do concur with your overall point.  Hollywood should be remaking bad or mediocre films, not good films.

Still, it should be a case of remaking films that had potential that was somehow squandered during production (for instance the film adaptations of Bonfire of the Vanities and American Pastoral, although they wouldn't strictly lead to remakes so much as re-adaptations).  Halloween 3 is, for me, a good example of a film that had a great idea (evil toy manufacturer plans to kill child population with Halloween masks) that fell short in its execution.  Unfortunately, Hollywood, in its flawed wisdom, decided instead to unnecessarily remake the good Halloween (i.e. the 1978 original).

As for IT, I still find any still of Tim Curry's Pennywise incredibly creepy.  There's something about Curry's dead-eyed stare that gives me the chills, especially when he's layered in makeup, as per Pennywise and Darkness in the fantasy film 'Legend', and that applies even whilst Pennywise is pretending to be a benign clown.  I still can't help but imagine how amazing Curry might have been as The Joker.

But admittedly, my response to the 1990 miniseries is significantly influenced by the fact I saw it as a little kid.  Modern horror films don't have such an intense affect on me simply because I'm now older and thus no longer susceptible to that primal fear one has as a kid.

I also have to say that apart from Curry's Pennywise, and one creepy scene in which one of Pennywise's victim's severed head is discovered in the fridge by his now-adult childhood friends, I don't think the 1990 miniseries is that brilliant, at least on an objective basis.  Some of the acting was pretty good, both by the child and adult cast, but the effects, apart from Pennywise, and overall production, now feels dated and less than polished.  So I do think the time is right for a new cinematic take on the Stephen King book, and I must say, I am reasonably impressed by what I've seen from the trailer so far.

[Silver Nemesis]

I'm not necessarily opposed to remakes. What bugs me is when stuff that was already awesome gets remade. Why not remake Ishtar or Gigli or something? Try getting it right this time. But remaking stuff that was fine to begin with is just lame.

No arguments here. But fixing something flawed requires talent and creativity. And that's something that's sadly lacking from most big Hollywood studios these days.

Still, it should be a case of remaking films that had potential that was somehow squandered during production (for instance the film adaptations of Bonfire of the Vanities and American Pastoral, although they wouldn't strictly lead to remakes so much as re-adaptations).

My dad gave me a copy of The Bonfire of the Vanities after we visited New York almost a decade ago. I'm a fan of Tom Wolfe's writing in general (The Right Stuff is brilliant), but Bonfire in particular is, in my opinion, one of the finest pieces of American literature ever produced. It captures the character of New York in the same way as Dickens captured the character of London.

I intentionally avoided researching De Palma's film adaptation until I'd finished reading it. Once I'd done so, I looked up the movie cast to see who was in it... and I saw Bruce Willis listed as Peter Fallow. After that, I just couldn't bring myself to watch it. I'm not sure it would ever have worked as a feature film anyway, but certainly not with terrible casting decisions like that. The novel is so dense, it would be better suited to a miniseries on Netflix or Amazon. Just don't let De Palma or Willis anywhere near it.

Halloween 3 is, for me, a good example of a film that had a great idea (evil toy manufacturer plans to kill child population with Halloween masks) that fell short in its execution.  Unfortunately, Hollywood, in its flawed wisdom, decided instead to unnecessarily remake the good Halloween (i.e. the 1978 original).

Halloween III is a guilty pleasure of mine. It's a deeply, deeply flawed movie, but I appreciate the fact it wasn't simply a retread of the Michael Myers story. It tried to do something different, and it's the only entry in the franchise to really be about Halloween. It has an autumnal ambience most of the other Halloween films lack. They should have just called it 'Season of the Witch' and downplayed the Halloween connection.

But I agree that it's a much better candidate for a remake than the 1978 original. Zombie was never going to top Carpenter's movie, but someone could potentially improve on Halloween III. Retain the elements that worked – the storyline, atmosphere, etc – and fix the elements that didn't. That's one remake I'd consider watching.

I still can't help but imagine how amazing Curry might have been as The Joker.

I often forget Curry was the original voice of the Joker in B:TAS until Hamill replaced him. Presumably he was cast based on his performance as Pennywise. Maybe WB will one day release some of the audio so we can hear what he would have sounded like.

I also have to say that apart from Curry's Pennywise, and one creepy scene in which one of Pennywise's victim's severed head is discovered in the fridge by his now-adult childhood friends, I don't think the 1990 miniseries is that brilliant, at least on an objective basis.  Some of the acting was pretty good, both by the child and adult cast, but the effects, apart from Pennywise, and overall production, now feels dated and less than polished.

I watched the miniseries last year for the first time in ages, and I had a similar reaction. Aspects of it hold up really well. Particularly Curry's performance. But some of the dialogue is a little awkward ("Why is it so MEAN?!") and there are a few too many group hug moments. I get that the friendship between the main characters is the heart of the story, but I felt their dependency on one another was at times overstated to the point of schmaltz (constantly patting each other on the shoulder, hugging, holding hands, sharing an inhaler and so forth). But it's still a solid miniseries. I suppose this new version being a theatrical movie will allow them to delve into content that couldn't have been depicted on television.

[johnnygobbs]

My dad gave me a copy of The Bonfire of the Vanities after we visited New York almost a decade ago. I'm a fan of Tom Wolfe's writing in general (The Right Stuff is brilliant), but Bonfire in particular is, in my opinion, one of the finest pieces of American literature ever produced. It captures the character of New York in the same way as Dickens captured the character of London.

I intentionally avoided researching De Palma's film adaptation until I'd finished reading it. Once I'd done so, I looked up the movie cast to see who was in it... and I saw Bruce Willis listed as Peter Fallow. After that, I just couldn't bring myself to watch it. I'm not sure it would ever have worked as a feature film anyway, but certainly not with terrible casting decisions like that. The novel is so dense, it would be better suited to a miniseries on Netflix or Amazon. Just don't let De Palma or Willis anywhere near it.

I'm a huge Tom Wolfe fan too, Bonfire... being my favourite (it's one of those rare novels that are just as rewarding the second and third time you read it, as the first).  Whatever one thinks of Wolfe's political perspective (and unlike Wolfe, I am a liberal), his writing is so detailed and descriptive that it cannot help but resonate as a perfect encapsulation of the period and community in question, in this case 1980s New York.

As for the film, I don't think it's bad as its reputation suggests, but clearly Bruce Willis and Tom Hanks were wildly miscast in their respective parts, and it goes without saying that it falls far, far short of the novel (apparently a TV miniseries is in pre-production, and I'd agree that this is ideally the perfect format for such an involved and often episodic novel, although I am somewhat concerned by the involvement of Chuck Lorre, the sitcom guy behind "Two and a Half Men").

However, a decent piece of work did result from the film adaptation.  I'd urge you to check out Julie Salamon's 'The Devil's Candy', which details the doomed production behind the movie.  Although it couldn't possibly touch Tom Wolfe's prose, it almost reads like a West Coast version of The Bonfire of the Vanities, with a similar cast of flawed and idiosyncratic characters (particularly Bruce Willis and Melanie Griffith, eternal nice-guy Tom Hanks coming off relatively well by contrast).  Even Brian De Palma apparently rates it as a fair and well-written account of the journey from acclaimed book to infamous flop movie.

Halloween III is a guilty pleasure of mine. It's a deeply, deeply flawed movie, but I appreciate the fact it wasn't simply a retread of the Michael Myers story. It tried to do something different, and it's the only entry in the franchise to really be about Halloween. It has an autumnal ambience most of the other Halloween films lack. They should have just called it 'Season of the Witch' and downplayed the Halloween connection.

But I agree that it's a much better candidate for a remake than the 1978 original. Zombie was never going to top Carpenter's movie, but someone could potentially improve on Halloween III. Retain the elements that worked – the storyline, atmosphere, etc – and fix the elements that didn't. That's one remake I'd consider watching.

I pretty much concur with everything you say here.  I think Halloween III is enjoyable as it is, but there's no doubt in my mind that it's a concept that, produced with a decent budget and on and off-screen personnel, has the potential to be a horror classic rather than a cult or guilty pleasure.

And for what it's worth, I can't stand the Rob Zombie remake of Halloween.  Not only was it unnecessary, it's a rather grotesque and lurid horror update.

I watched the miniseries last year for the first time in ages, and I had a similar reaction. Aspects of it hold up really well. Particularly Curry's performance. But some of the dialogue is a little awkward ("Why is it so MEAN?!") and there are a few too many group hug moments. I get that the friendship between the main characters is the heart of the story, but I felt their dependency on one another was at times overstated to the point of schmaltz (constantly patting each other on the shoulder, hugging, holding hands, sharing an inhaler and so forth). But it's still a solid miniseries. I suppose this new version being a theatrical movie will allow them to delve into content that couldn't have been depicted on television.

It's a decent miniseries, as you say, but I look forward to seeing what can be achieved on a higher budget.  Hopefully, if the film is successful, we'll get a follow-up dealing with the Losers' Club in adulthood.

[The Joker]

For those interested, I found this interview/retrospective about the original 1990 ABC mini series of IT to be a good read.

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/back-to-derry-an-oral-history-of-stephen-kings-153351801.html

To be perfectly honest, I would say 1990's IT is decidedly my favorite out of all the Stephen King adaptations that originally aired as a TV mini series, or TV movie. Course some of that has to do with Tim Curry, & nostalgia, but overall I believe that the story was translated reasonably well and still works to some degree. Especially considering the budget limitations of the time, as well as the material itself being obviously constrained for what was deemed suitable for 1990 television standards. Still, IT did the job in creeping people the F out and Curry's performance being very memorable.

With the remake, there's alot that can be done, as there is quite a bit from the book that did not make it into the 1990 tele films.

For instance, there are alot of scenes in the book that include the gay-bashing scene at the start of the book, the Chud ritual (which *I believe* had a Indian legend behind it that revealed IT's weakness being silver...., a lot of history/disasters/murders where IT had terrorized Derry in the past. The clubhouse, Beverley's dad going, um, batsh*t crazy, Hockstetter, Mike battling the giant bird ect. There's also stuff like Ben for example is a loner outside of Lincoln Nebraska, while Ben in the TV mini series is a lush living in New York City where Richie is in the book. Richie being in Beverly Hills where Bill and his wife are in the book. There's probably more examples, but those stick out the most.

One common complaint about the 1990 TV movie that often gets brought up ad nauseum, is the whole deal with IT being "revealed" as a Giant Spider at the end. Personally, I never had a big issue with it. Then, or now. I know there's alot of people that have no interest in reading the book, and will believe that IT's true form is that of a Giant Spider, but it's pretty straightforward in that the Giant Spider is intended to convey that humans cannot fully comprehend IT's "true" shape, only that a spider was as close as the human mind could get to It. As many people have a fear of spiders already, it makes sense.

One thing that appears to be the case, is that the 1990 TV movie remains true to the book in atleast as far as in a narrative sense. As both the book and TV movie jump between the childhood of The Losers Group and their current day lives. This doesn't appear to be what's going on with the 2017 film. Not sure if that will have any major effect, but of course, we will see.

Oh yeah, some fun facts about IT.

[Silver Nemesis]

However, a decent piece of work did result from the film adaptation.  I'd urge you to check out Julie Salamon's 'The Devil's Candy', which details the doomed production behind the movie.  Although it couldn't possibly touch Tom Wolfe's prose, it almost reads like a West Coast version of The Bonfire of the Vanities, with a similar cast of flawed and idiosyncratic characters (particularly Bruce Willis and Melanie Griffith, eternal nice-guy Tom Hanks coming off relatively well by contrast).  Even Brian De Palma apparently rates it as a fair and well-written account of the journey from acclaimed book to infamous flop movie.

Thanks for the recommendation. I've not heard of that book before now, but it sounds like an interesting read. I've always enjoyed books and documentaries about unproduced or disastrous films. And it wouldn't be the first behind-the-scenes book I've read to paint a negative picture of Bruce Willis. I'm glad Hanks comes across well though. It's interesting that he was cast in such a dramatic part in 1990, back when he was still largely considered a comedic actor. I don't think the industry truly recognised what a talented serious actor Hanks was until he starred in films like Philadelphia, Forrest Gump and Apollo 13. Perhaps his work on De Palma's picture helped pave the way for those meatier roles?

As a matter of interest, who would you have cast as Fallow back in 1990? I'm trying to think of an actor from that era who could have played an intemperate British journalist in the spirit of the book. Perhaps someone like Jonathan Pryce, Anthony Andrews or Christopher Guest?

I am somewhat concerned by the involvement of Chuck Lorre, the sitcom guy behind "Two and a Half Men").

The novel contains some hilarious satire – particularly in its depiction of the eighties New York bourgeoisie and the macho Wall Street 'sharks' – but it also contains intense drama and serious social and racial themes. Striking the correct tonal balance is one of the biggest challenges facing anyone intending to adapt it, and I hope they don't try to circumvent the issue by reducing the material to a situational comedy. There were a handful of films in the eighties that managed to effectively mix similar satirical themes with drama (I'm thinking specifically of Wall Street and RoboCop), so it definitely can be done. But a Two and a Half Men connection doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

And for what it's worth, I can't stand the Rob Zombie remake of Halloween.  Not only was it unnecessary, it's a rather grotesque and lurid horror update.

I'll credit Zombie with a certain flair for visuals, but his particular brand of hillbilly horror has never appealed to me either. I thought his demystified and explicit approach to the Halloween remake betrayed a fundamental lack of understanding about what made the original so effective to begin with. Trading subtlety and suspense for graphic violence seldom pays off, and it certainly didn't in this case.

For instance, there are alot of scenes in the book that include the gay-bashing scene at the start of the book, the Chud ritual (which *I believe* had a Indian legend behind it that revealed IT's weakness being silver...., a lot of history/disasters/murders where IT had terrorized Derry in the past. The clubhouse, Beverley's dad going, um, batsh*t crazy, Hockstetter, Mike battling the giant bird ect. There's also stuff like Ben for example is a loner outside of Lincoln Nebraska, while Ben in the TV mini series is a lush living in New York City where Richie is in the book. Richie being in Beverly Hills where Bill and his wife are in the book. There's probably more examples, but those stick out the most.

I've read about half a dozen Stephen King novels, but It isn't one of them. So this is all new to me. It does seem like there's a lot of material missing from the TV version. In an age when film studios are needlessly adapting 200 page novels into 9-hour movie trilogies, this could be a rare instance where a multi-film treatment is actually called for.

One thing that appears to be the case, is that the 1990 TV movie remains true to the book in atleast as far as in a narrative sense. As both the book and TV movie jump between the childhood of The Losers Group and their current day lives. This doesn't appear to be what's going on with the 2017 film. Not sure if that will have any major effect, but of course, we will see.

Has it been confirmed if they're definitely making a second film featuring the adult versions of the characters? I liked the way the TV version cut back and forth between the two time periods. Seeing the adult characters reacting to their childhood traumas was a great way of building suspense prior to Pennywise's appearance. It showed us the effect before showing us the cause, and that made anticipation of the cause all the more frightening.

[thecolorsblend]

In an age when film studios are needlessly adapting 200 page novels into 9-hour movie trilogies, this could be a rare instance where a multi-film treatment is actually called for.

In today's market, I think a lot of book adaptations can be done well in the form of a Netflix series.

The Man in the High Castle is a good example of what can be done... even though it's released by Amazon rather than Netflix. But you get the idea.

Anyway, my guess is it's more of an ongoing show inspired by Dick's novel as opposed to an "adaptation" of the novel. But it comes to the same. The Netflix format allows a deeper exploration of the material or perhaps an alternative look at the material which isn't necessarily beholden to delivering a beginning, middle and ending.

It would be frustrating as hell to do something like that in broadcast television but streaming seems to have a lot more flexibility and offers a chance to luxuriate in the material a bit more or maybe indulge more creative impulses.

Perhaps IT might be better served as a Netflix/Amazon show?

[johnnygobbs]

Thanks for the recommendation. I've not heard of that book before now, but it sounds like an interesting read. I've always enjoyed books and documentaries about unproduced or disastrous films. And it wouldn't be the first behind-the-scenes book I've read to paint a negative picture of Bruce Willis. I'm glad Hanks comes across well though. It's interesting that he was cast in such a dramatic part in 1990, back when he was still largely considered a comedic actor. I don't think the industry truly recognised what a talented serious actor Hanks was until he starred in films like Philadelphia, Forrest Gump and Apollo 13. Perhaps his work on De Palma's picture helped pave the way for those meatier roles?

As a matter of interest, who would you have cast as Fallow back in 1990? I'm trying to think of an actor from that era who could have played an intemperate British journalist in the spirit of the book. Perhaps someone like Jonathan Pryce, Anthony Andrews or Christopher Guest?

Definitely Jonathan Pryce (one of my favourite actors).  He played a similarly floundering character in Brazil, which came out a few years earlier to Bonfire, and I can see him circa 1990 as a washed-up reporter.  Plus, although he wasn't a big star, he was still pretty well-known and regarded by that stage.

Had he been much better-known I think Roger Allam, who is now an established name in stuff like "Game of Thrones", "The Thick of It", Speed Racer, and a few other films, would have been a good choice.  I vaguely remember that Peter Fallow was described as being quite pudgy, but I could be wrong about that.  He's certainly described as a borderline alcoholic, like I suspect many British journalists are.

Hanks wasn't terrible in Bonfire, but he was miscast.  De Palma has said that in retrospect he would have cast someone less likeable and more supercilious-seeming for the part, like John Lithgow, who he's worked with a few times.  I think Lithgow would have worked, although I always liked the idea of William Hurt as Sherman McCoy.  Hurt can do unlikeable and haughty, but he's also got the looks to go with the self-proclaimed 'Master of the Universe'.

The problem with casting Hanks is that it totally undermines the essence of the novel, which fundamentally asks its readers to perform the counterintuitive task of rooting for an incredibly unlikable man of immense privilege.  Basically Wolfe is saying "don't judge McCoy on the basis of our prejudices and preconceptions of a wealthy adulterous stockbroker, but judge him on the basis of the crime he's been (wrongfully) accused of", contrary to the supporting cast who are all too eager to throw McCoy to the lions (mostly out of self-interest).  Suffice to say, Hanks' presence stacks the cards in McCoy's favour from the get-go, since the actor is so innately likeable and easy-to-root for.

But it is interesting to note, as you do, that despite the failure of Bonfire, one of Hanks' first big meaty dramatic roles (Big is a great piece of acting, but it's still seen as a semi-comic part, as is the underrated Punchline, which cast Hanks as a stand-up comedian with a dark side), he went on, within the space of two or three years, to become the preeminent American dramatic actor of his generation.

The novel contains some hilarious satire – particularly in its depiction of the eighties New York bourgeoisie and the macho Wall Street 'sharks' – but it also contains intense drama and serious social and racial themes. Striking the correct tonal balance is one of the biggest challenges facing anyone intending to adapt it, and I hope they don't try to circumvent the issue by reducing the material to a situational comedy. There were a handful of films in the eighties that managed to effectively mix similar satirical themes with drama (I'm thinking specifically of Wall Street and RoboCop), so it definitely can be done. But a Two and a Half Men connection doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

I think Martin Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street provides a great template as to how that type of balance and tone might be achieved.

I'll credit Zombie with a certain flair for visuals, but his particular brand of hillbilly horror has never appealed to me either. I thought his demystified and explicit approach to the Halloween remake betrayed a fundamental lack of understanding about what made the original so effective to begin with. Trading subtlety and suspense for graphic violence seldom pays off, and it certainly didn't in this case.

Agreed.  I just felt that the remake came across as rather grotty and sordid, which works if you're remaking say, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but is totally unnecessary in the case of Halloween, the original of which is still relatively subtle and chilling, rather than filled with excess splatter and gore.