IT - Official Trailer 1

I like the second line in that new TV spot, but what's up with that scooby doo sound when he says "Where you going?" Zoinks
 
Jarmel said:
Alright fears about Pennywise are somewhat allayed. His delivery is creepy as fuck.

thank you based turtle
Click to expand...

Really curious about where this dialogue is taking place, if it's even dialogue from the same interaction. Like the "You look like a nice boy" doesn't have to be to Eddie; could be to Georgie, for example. The same is true for the "Bet you have a lot of friends" line, but that would almost *have* to be said to one of the Losers -- because it's too good of a threatening line to be spent on Georgie's account (especially since there's a goldmine of material in Chapter 1 of the book for someone wanting dialogue).

"Where you going" could be anywhere, to anyone who sees It and attempts to leave.

I'm very down with Bill Skarsgard's take on this character so far, even though it's early.
 
I didn't realise until the latest trailer that the 'main' kid from Stranger Things is in this. I feel that's a little close to home.

Film looks great though, I hope they do the leper under the house scene - I can't imagine how much they've had to cut from the book.
 
Spoo said:
Really curious about where this dialogue is taking place, if it's even dialogue from the same interaction. Like the "You look like a nice boy" doesn't have to be to Eddie; could be to Georgie, for example. The same is true for the "Bet you have a lot of friends" line, but that would almost *have* to be said to one of the Losers -- because it's too good of a threatening line to be spent on Georgie's account (especially since there's a goldmine of material in Chapter 1 of the book for someone wanting dialogue).

"Where you going" could be anywhere, to anyone who sees It and attempts to leave.

I'm very down with Bill Skarsgard's take on this character so far, even though it's early.
Click to expand...
I might be reading too much into this but the audio sounds a bit reverberated which makes me think of the Georgie scene with him in the sewer. I agree the friends line would be great for one of the Losers though.

I'm just more impressed with the delivery as it sounds a bit more charming and threatening, at the same time, then I expected.
 
I found this article a few days back and forgot to share (apologies if it was already linked):

IGN Preview for IT

Some quotes I think are pretty interesting.

On not having "identifiable" creatures this go around, and doing the 80s instead of the 50s:

I'm going to be very candid. When we got into the project, that's how it was and we agreed with it completely for two reasons. Try to film what you know. [Stephen] King writes what he knows, we try to film what we know. We grew up in the '80s. We wanted to do a very rounded '80s and not a caricaturesque '80s, and we can do that because we know the period very well. Also, I think the fears in the '50s from the book, they're absolutely wonderful, but we wanted less tangible fears and more internal. I think part of the adaptation in the '80s is that we could do that without destroying the characters in the '50s. It's a blank slate for fears, with winks to the '50s fears but a little less naive.
Click to expand...

On Will Poulter's (Original actor tapped by Cary Fukunaga to play Pennywise) exit from the production:

And I remember I was sort of interested in Will Poulter. He was part of a previous approach, and I had a meeting with him. He wasn't very interested in doing it at that time. And also his career was starting to take off and I think he got a little scared. So to be honest, I saw a lot of people, but there was very few, a small short list, and Bill was on top of it."
Click to expand...

On Skarsgard's interpretation of the character of Pennywise:

As for Skarsgard's performance and the voice of Pennywise, the director said, "It's a different approach... He's not sticking to one voice. He has different personas. Because it's a character that is based also on unpredictability, so he has this stagey persona, the more clowny appearance, but then in certain scenes when he turns into this other, which is harder to grasp, and that's the ‘other" - you know, the ‘It.' And he has a different tone, he has a deeper voice, and a different feel to it."
Click to expand...

On Bill's surprising kindness:

Sophia Lillis ("Beverly Marsh") stressed, "Bill's an extremely nice guy," but added, "It was kind of scary because you see him in his whole makeup, and he's like ‘Hey, how you doing?'

Said Grazer, of Skarsgard, "He's a total sweetheart. When he was supposed to push me against the cabinet he was like ‘Can we have a pillow for Jack? I don't want to hit his head.'"
Click to expand...

On seeing the kids again in the second IT movie:

In fact, the director wants the child actors to return in the second film in some capacity, explaining, "I always insisted that if there is a second part, there would be a dialogue between the two timelines, and that it would be approached like the adult life of the Losers, but there would be flashbacks that sort of illuminate events that are not told in the first one."
Click to expand...
 
Auctopus said:
I didn't realise until the latest trailer that the 'main' kid from Stranger Things is in this. I feel that's a little close to home.

Film looks great though, I hope they do the leper under the house scene - I can't imagine how much they've had to cut from the book.
Click to expand...

He was cast in It way before Stranger Things even came out, to be fair. He looks like he'll be great as Richie.
 
Meanwhile the kids had naturally been considering who could play them as adults, with Lillis suggesting Jessica Chastain for Beverly, while Wolfhard said for Richie, he wanted, “Bill Hader. who I think is a great choice - just in my opinion.”
Click to expand...
.

I really liked this part. Would love to see Hader do a serious horror film.
 
kurahador said:
This movie is revealed to be 135 minutes long. Longest horror movie in a while I think.
Click to expand...
Horror movies tend to be 90-100 minutes so I'm glad IT is taking it's time (unlike the Dark Tower). This story is more about the town of Derry and how the creature is intertwined with it than just about the creature.
 
Timu said:
Wow, that's longer than usual for a horror movie!
Click to expand...

They're getting, I think, a lot of what they wanted from the studio to make this movie. The R-rating was a win, they were allowed to re-write the script after Fukunaga's exit, they are pretty much guaranteed the second film (pre-production work has begun, I believe?), and the runtime is actually going to mean that, assuming the second film has comparable length, this is going to end up being longer than the miniseries when strung together.

Originally there was a lot of fear over Fukunaga leaving the production, for a few reasons (he *is*, after all, a gifted director and writer). That said, even a talented person can be the wrong guy for a project; there were a *lot* of really weird things in his script that I don't think spoke to the integrity of the book, which is clearly what the studio had in mind. There were creative clashes, yes, but some of those things in the original script were... off. Like, I heard about one part where one of the kids sees a naked woman pleasuring herself in a church (it's Pennywise trying to disturb one of the kids by peering into his budding sexuality, and perverting it).

This doesn't happen in the book. There were other things, like Bill's name being changed, the stuttering being removed, etc. There were just a lot of liberties taken there. According to one account, the entire scene with the leper wasn't in the original script (it is in the rewrite, heavily).

I think Muschietti had a vision for It that just so happened to be in line with the studio's vision, which is a closeness with the book, which is exactly what most fans have been wanting to see (sans, of course, *that* scene). That said, there are plenty of things in Fukunaga's original treatment that are still here, so there's definitely a big contribution in here from his work (The concept for the clown being a more sinister, and archaic presence is carried over from the original plan).

I'm pretty stoked to see how it all turns out. Mama was a pretty great movie that relied a bit too much on CGI imo, with a third act that crumbled. Visually it was pretty great. The kids rapport with each other seems *really* good. And Bill looks like he's going to nail the take on Pennywise, which is the huge reservation so many had early on. Getting more and more hopeful on this one.

Edit: BTW, I have no idea who is doing the OT for the movie, but I'd love to help contribute to that if possible.
 
Spoo said:
Like, I heard about one part where one of the kids sees a naked woman pleasuring herself in a church (it's Pennywise trying to disturb one of the kids by peering into his budding sexuality, and perverting it).

This doesn't happen in the book. There were other things, like Bill's name being changed, the stuttering being removed, etc. There were just a lot of liberties taken there. According to one account, the entire scene with the leper wasn't in the original script (it is in the rewrite, heavily).
Click to expand...
I think scenes like the church one would have been great as it's a way of warping that aspect of being a teenager while also reinforcing the notion of the town being on the verge of insanity. That's almost something I would expect in a Salem's Lot remake and I like the depiction too of IT also saying that even in church you're not safe from it.

Does Bill have stuttering in this version? I can't remember hearing any lines like that but due to how faithful they're trying to be, I'm sure that's still the case.
 
For some reason, I hadn't realized that they're only doing Part 1 for this movie. It's essentially incomplete, so there will probably be a huge cliffhanger at the end.
 
Jarmel said:
Does Bill have stuttering in this version? I can't remember hearing any lines like that but due to how faithful they're trying to be, I'm sure that's still the case.
Click to expand...

I've been wondering about this, too. The director refers to him as Stuttering Bill on his instagram account, but I haven't noticed a pronounced stutter in any footage.
 
E-Cat said:
For some reason, I hadn't realized that they're only doing Part 1 for this movie. It's essentially incomplete, so there will probably be a huge cliffhanger at the end.
Click to expand...
Well, there's real resolution to the story, albeit with uncertainty for the future and the vow to return *if* it returns.
 
Kyleripman said:
I've been wondering about this, too. The director refers to him as Stuttering Bill on his instagram account, but I haven't noticed a pronounced stutter in any footage.
Click to expand...

He has said that Bill stutters, and I think in some footage, maybe even Trailer 1, he does stutter (it sounds like a bit of a recovered stutter when he says "I saw something") -- I do suspect it will be a lot less stuttering going on, though, overall.
 
Spoo said:
He has said that Bill stutters, and I think in some footage, maybe even Trailer 1, he does stutter (it sounds like a bit of a recovered stutter when he says "I saw something") -- I do suspect it will be a lot less stuttering going on, though, overall.
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks. I was hearing that line from the trailer as his voice shaking a little bit with fear. Glad they are preserving that aspect!
 
Alrighty, between the new trailer, the 30 second spot just posted, the run time, and the articles, I'm upgrading from cautiously optimistic to just plain optimistic.

This sounds like they understand and respect the material enough to do it proper justice, and we have ample evidence at this point that they're going to at least partially succeed.

Which is fucking amazing. 'It' is not an easy work to really get right.

The bit about filming what you know - and moving the setting forward to the 80's accordingly - is the most reassuring thing I've read so far.
 
Got my Copy ready to dive back into it this weekend so I can be finished before the movie. My favorite King book by far and it's been 20 years since I read it last.
 
Seems to be taking a rather different approach than the last adaptation, Five Children and It, which wasn't like the stephen king book at all!
 
Jarmel said:
I think scenes like the church one would have been great as it's a way of warping that aspect of being a teenager while also reinforcing the notion of the town being on the verge of insanity. That's almost something I would expect in a Salem's Lot remake and I like the depiction too of IT also saying that even in church you're not safe from it.
Click to expand...

There's really just two ways to think about it; Fukunaga wanted to take more creative control over the material, and intuit the core of the creature that is It, and make it sort of a different kind of demon. I think his stated goal isn't, by itself, entirely undesirable, or even "wrong", but when you read some of the leaked script, you just get a sense that it's a different character, and to a degree, a different story because of it.

On the other hand, Muschietti's take is safer, yes, because it appears to take less liberties with the source material, but I also believe that both directors came at it with a goal of recreating their experience with the book, and Cary's view was a less literal interpretation.

Of course, the studio had a big stake in matters, and Cary was pushing for a lot of things that just was never gonna fly. For one, he wanted an NC-17 rating, and while the argument can be made that the book is an NC-17 book, when you translate that, that heart and the soul of the story comes before the sex, and bloodshed, but you also want to tame it a bit, and massage it into something that fits a block of time, and people's willingness to see a divergence from the material. He also wanted I think a bigger budget, and a promise up-front for the two movie deal. Ironically, the studio seeing this version of the movie has basically green-lit Part 2, so if Cary was confident in what he was going to produce, he probably didn't have to push that far. Also, Will Poulter was, I think, a questionable choice. Very, very interesting, but questionable.

Cary's script, what little I've seen, really sets a tone that isn't true to King's work. I think King would probably end up enjoying both versions seen to fruition, but I don't think a general audience would enjoy both versions. So I think the studio saw eye-to-eye with Muschietti, rather than Muschietti bending backward to see their take on it, per se. In either case, there will be surprises, and changes from the source material, but I feel a *lot* more comfortable with the current versions changes, and its focus.

Cary Fukunaga is an unquestionably talented director and writer, and I think IT will benefit from having him there in the beginning. I ultimately think that from the re-casting, to the re-writing of the script, to even the change in director, it's probably going to end up being the better, truer adaptation. And when we only get so many opportunities to see IT on the silver screen, I think the right call was probably made.
 
Is therr a list posted of others who potentially could have played Pennywise? I want to see if they're all young actors or if they were interested in some older people too.
 
Man I hope this movie is good. I have been getting myself hyped for it. I just finished the book the other day so I hope it lives up.
 
Beyond hyped. I wish I wasn't dammit, because hype usually lets me down, but goddammit, movie looks soooo good. I need to see this NOW
 
Spoo said:
This doesn't happen in the book. There were other things, like Bill's name being changed, the stuttering being removed, etc. There were just a lot of liberties taken there. According to one account, the entire scene with the leper wasn't in the original script (it is in the rewrite, heavily).
Click to expand...
They seem to be beefing up the whole "house on Neibolt Street" thing in the movie more than in original script. In the script, it was only the book's "house on Neibolt Street" in name, and its interior was just a typical dilapidated house. Seeing the clown room in the newer trailer, Muschietti's version is likely more inspired by the "nightmarish fun house" of the novel.
 
MagnaderAlpha said:
They seem to be beefing up the whole "house on Neibolt Street" thing in the movie more than in original script. In the script, it was only the book's "house on Neibolt Street" in name, and its interior was just a typical dilapidated house. Seeing the clown room in the newer trailer, Muschietti's version is likely more inspired by the "nightmarish fun house" of the novel.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's definitely beefed up. And there's stuff, like the Leper itself -- didn't make it in the miniseries, nor Fukunaga's script -- that Andy was apparently adamant about having it. And of course, the reason for the determinism to have certain things in the movie all come from the many different ways that these guys were impacted by the source material. There's not really a wrong answer, just answers that deviate from that material in one direction or another.

I mean, I've seen people around the net begging for the infamous sewer scene -- a scene even King regrets writing. Whatever the book is, it's clearly a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and the filmmakers are going to want to leave their mark on that material. Actually having it take place in the 80s instead of the 50s is a pretty significant departure, but it's a departure that I don't think will harm the foundation of the story, and may actually re-establish it in a way that is more meaningful for today's audiences. There's the more complicated stuff in the book that I think we'll find are missing here -- some of the otherworldly stuff, the origin of It, the turtle stuff, I think we'll see winks and nods there that cement that stuff as playing a role, but it'll be necessarily reduced.

Very little of the stuff I've seen from the Fukunaga script sat well with me both as someone who enjoyed the miniseries, and, of course, the book. Some of it was a bit alluring, because it's a different take, but after thinking on it for a while, I really would just like a movie that adapts the book as best as possible.
 
kurahador said:
This movie is revealed to be 135 minutes long. Longest horror movie in a while I think.
Click to expand...
If the 2nd movie gets made and it's a similar length, you can marathon the two as one big ass 4h 30m epic. The originals 3h runtime looks downright rushed in comparison lol

If this turns out as good as it's possibly looking like it might it'll still be bittersweet considering were at the same time getting an utterly mangled abortion of an adaptation of the Dark Tower, which is just unacceptable considering the potential of that series.
 
Spoo said:
Yeah, it's definitely beefed up. And there's stuff, like the Leper itself -- didn't make it in the miniseries, nor Fukunaga's script -- that Andy was apparently adamant about having it. And of course, the reason for the determinism to have certain things in the movie all come from the many different ways that these guys were impacted by the source material. There's not really a wrong answer, just answers that deviate from that material in one direction or another.

I mean, I've seen people around the net begging for the infamous sewer scene -- a scene even King regrets writing. Whatever the book is, it's clearly a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and the filmmakers are going to want to leave their mark on that material. Actually having it take place in the 80s instead of the 50s is a pretty significant departure, but it's a departure that I don't think will harm the foundation of the story, and may actually re-establish it in a way that is more meaningful for today's audiences. There's the more complicated stuff in the book that I think we'll find are missing here -- some of the otherworldly stuff, the origin of It, the turtle stuff, I think we'll see winks and nods there that cement that stuff as playing a role, but it'll be necessarily reduced.

Very little of the stuff I've seen from the Fukunaga script sat well with me both as someone who enjoyed the miniseries, and, of course, the book. Some of it was a bit alluring, because it's a different take, but after thinking on it for a while, I really would just like a movie that adapts the book as best as possible.
Click to expand...

I remember for the longest time, two of the things people wanted in the mini-series, and the two things people always hoped would appear in a "remake" (at the time, not knowing if one would ever be announced until this movie was) were the house at Neibolt Street and the character of Patrick Hockstetter. When I read the original script, the changes made to both of them seemed to the point that I questioned why they even decided to include them in the first place. Those two parts of the book are beloved because what they "are", they ain't something as simple as a "by-name-only" nod. There was significance to what people liked about those two things. House on Neibolt Street ain't just any ol' abandoned house, and Patrick Hockstetter ain't just any ol' member of the Bowers gang. At least that's how a lot of people see it. If you take away the significance, might as well just do any ol' house, like in the mini-series with the house at the park (which doubled for the Standpipe in spirit, and replaced the drowned kids with Ben's Mummy), or get Moose or that other unimportant guy that hangs around with the Bowers gang (the one that was with his girlfriend and made fun of Richie and Bev before they got with Ben to go to the movies). No-name place, no-name Bowers gang It-fodder.

Regarding that sewer scene, I don't know what to think about people clamoring for it. A part of me thinks its just trolls sayin' "Hur hur hur, put in THAT scene! Hur hur hur... edgy... derpa-dee, derpa-doo!", though others might actually want it out of some perverted intent. I don't think many who read and love the book would want it just for the sake of "it was in the book", cause any logical person would know that shit wouldn't cut it in a major motion picture aimed for a mainstream audience. And I think a lot of us that DID read the book and love it are well aware of that fact and think within that logical too. I mean, I love the novel, but fuck no would I want to see THAT scene in a movie.
 
This guy sure looks friendly:

Dfzax4Y.png
Click to expand...
 
The kids are helpless to bullies and the adults don't care, and they still have to deal with the clown, oh damn.

This setting is what makes this horror story so thrilling. This trailer has me hyped, looks better than the early teaser images.
 
Oh my God at that TV spot.

Anybody worried that this Pennywise isn't going to have a sense of humor can stop worrying. Bill doing all the right things.
 
That fuckin pennywise the clown tv show hahahah

Bill Skarsgard has made me a believer. He annoyed the shit outta me in that show hemlock grove so I was definitely one of the dudes who thought the initial reveal pics of him looked lame as shit. I have loved everything I've seen in the trailers since though, especially how fucking menacing pennywise looks.

This movie is going to make so much fucking money.

P1narFR.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom