It: Welcome to Derry - Teaser Trailer
- Thread starter Loke
- Start date
RJMacready73
Simps for Amouranth
recently watched the new movies with the daughter, really enjoyed the first one but the second dragged and was too overly reliant on cgi imo, hopefully this is less cgi.. "oooo computer graphics are scary" and more dark and sinister, certainly has that vibe, is the original pennywise dude in this?
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt
Biggest Trails Stan
Hope we see some Todash Darkness
Loke
Member
Yep, Bill Skarsgård is reprising his role.
spookyfish
Gold Member
Agreed. Tim Curry made that work so well. But even the miniseries gets a little goofy during the "part 2" adult years. I just don't think that kind of fear translates well. "Oh NO. A WOLFMAN!!" "IS THAT A BALLOON???" It just doesn't work with adults.
EerieArcade
Member
Looks decent. Makes me want to watch the original IT. First time I was ever scared by a horror film/show.
GymWolf
Member
I started watching horror movies at 3 years old and it tv series still managed to scare me for a while.
analog_future
Resident Crybaby
Looks fantastic. The book is one of my favorite books of all time, the 1990 film is a classic, the 2017 film was solid, and let's not talk about Chapter 2.
Really hope they lean heavily on the horror and veer away from the comedy.
Really hope they lean heavily on the horror and veer away from the comedy.
Last edited:
NeverYouMind
Member
He likely wants Tim Curry from TV adaptation.
P.S. I am reading the book now and the stuttering passages are giving me conniptions. It is also not that well written.
Last edited:
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
Tim Curry is in a wheelchair and sticks to voice acting
Shaki12345
Banned
I wonder if, like the movies, they will announce every "scare" with a loud sound effect to make sure the smartphone users are engaged.
Last edited:
Werewolf Jones
Member
Without the cocaine lore It is just Stranger Things.
NickFire
Member
I'm gonna watch this as soon as it comes out. No question at all there.
But, I'm a little disappointed, I thought they were going to focus on events that would have predated the main story from the get go. Now it seems seasonal 1 will be a side story to the main story. Not sure how the story arc can really have a satisfying ending there. Will every kid who doesn't die just wake up one day and find out the other kids drove it off again?
But, I'm a little disappointed, I thought they were going to focus on events that would have predated the main story from the get go. Now it seems seasonal 1 will be a side story to the main story. Not sure how the story arc can really have a satisfying ending there. Will every kid who doesn't die just wake up one day and find out the other kids drove it off again?
Chuck Berry
Gold Member
It's supposed to be a prequel but it takes place in 1962?
Bill and his crew are all kids from the late 50's originally. Did Hollywood fuck that up?
I'm glad I've never seen these movies. The book is one of my favorites of all time.
Bill and his crew are all kids from the late 50's originally. Did Hollywood fuck that up?
I'm glad I've never seen these movies. The book is one of my favorites of all time.
Doom85
Member
It Part 1 (as in the recent film) takes place in 1989, and Part 2 in 2016. Yes, it's a change from the book, but it really doesn't alter the story in any major way, and it maintains the 27 year rule.
Honestly, while Part 2 is a significant step down from Part 1 due to some weird directing choices and effects (still less awful than that hilariously bad-looking spider from the original miniseries) it honestly was smart in cutting some of the fluff of the second half of the book which was not as solid as the first half with them as kids: Beverly's asshole husband is only in the beginning of the film when she runs away from him, which is a good thing to cut as Henry already serves the role as a human antagonist following Pennywise's influence and has already been established in Part 1, and Bill's wife does not show up which again seems like a good thing to cut as I felt she added nothing essential to the book, the movie ending on Bill and Mike talking to each other feels more meaningful than that overly corny bicycle ride between Bill and his wife since the latter I barely know so why end with her?
Like, I love the book, it is one of my favorites of King's (Pet Semetary is my #1 of his), but there's no doubt the book could have used some further editing. Stephen King himself said in his book On Writing that his general rule is to aim for having a final draft be 10% shorter compared to his first draft when writing a new story, I wonder if that rule came after It and he himself feels it needed to be shorter, or was his first draft for It insanely long?
Regardless, the film Part 1 mostly handles the horror well. Yes, there are some basic jump scares that could have held back some but definitely not all of them, particularly a certain individual out of focus in the background in a scene at the library sent a chill down my spine when I noticed it. Also, that goddamn painting in the synagogue. I also think visually it works better to have all of Pennywise's balloons be red than all the colors, it makes for a more unnatural image whereas regular balloons will just look normal to me no matter how it's shot.
Also, the kids are all pretty much great in their roles. The adults for the most part too, but especially Bill Hader as Richie, who not only nails the comedy but really delivers an emotional performance near the end with his tearful breakdown over who they lose to Pennywise near the end.
Sardaukarama
Member
I still have no got around to reading the book so I'm looking forward to this backstory. Tim Curry scared the shit out in the original, I think he is a national treasure