It
- Thread starter Interslicery
- Start date
Looking forward to It greatly.
. I dun liek jump scares.
Kai Schulen
... ... ...▼
- AKA
- Trainer Red
I remember watching this as a little kid (cause my cousin thought it would be funny) and I remember I couldn't watch It without covering my eyes from the fear.
I honestly thought I could watch the trailer for the 2017 remake without getting scared, got scared and had to go hide my face. GG, me.
I honestly thought I could watch the trailer for the 2017 remake without getting scared, got scared and had to go hide my face. GG, me.
Clement Rage
Pro Adventurer
I hate to be the crotchety unpleasable fan, but... I don't like that trailer? Sorry folks. There are plenty of moments from the story that are suitable for jumpscares, but they picked the wrong ones. IT is more than just the monster that jumps out at you, as a very jumpy person, I didn't find this scary. Could do with more 'creeping dread' rather than 'boo!'
Can you really call any of these 'jump' scares by the conventional definition? The whole method of a Jump scare is that we get a silent moment of the mundane, and suddenly your monster/killer jumps out of nowhere. Nightmare on Elm Street 2017 is the king of abusing what should be a tool for tension and release during long stretches.
1. Pennywise in the sewer; That's...just the way the scene works. No matter what, that scene is going to operate on Pennywise being a little unnerving at first. The way it unfolds is that he then backpeddles his creep factor, lures Georgie in with his boat, and then goes for the kill.
2. The ending. The fact is that we're already in fright mode with Ghost Georgie, and we see Penny's face emerging before he blasts out. To me it feels less Jump Scare and more a play out of the J-Horror Sadako/Kaiyako play book. In J-Horror, they have no qualms with showing the monster, and then just piling on by having it go for the throat even though we know its coming.
And to counter that, the projector scene is a real genius move, because it's a dawning realization of dread despite no actualized threat. If you've read the book, you know that Pennywise tries to pop out of a photo album as a 'jump scare' of sorts. Here, it uses the tech of 80s to take something really common place and turn it into an avenue of fear. I almost wish they hadn't shown this scene, since unless you're a stickler for the details, even fans of the book/series won't know what this scene entails until the scene is in full throttle. I've also heard some people say they get a Nightmare on Elm Street vibe off of the trailer. I have to agree, Penny and Freddy have similar meta-magical qualities, and the camera/vibe, even some of the lines feel very similar to Elm Street part III.
So I think besides playing the rules of a trailer, this doesn't seem like a film that's going to rely on jump scares. My only dread is that we know that the sequel is going to be set in modern times. 1989 in this, and 2016 for the sequel. I really hope they resist the urge to go Sinister 2 where Pennywise is on every computer and smartphone screen possible.
Interviews ages ago states it's set in the 80s, plus it makes sense from a few things. The car models are all 1980s, and there's a xerox machine which didn't exist till a year after the Loser Club part ends. The clothes are all 80s. Henry's been changed from a greaser to a metal head, complete with mullet. Lastly, the 27 year rule would set the second movie directly into contemporary times, which is kind of an important selling point.
So 1989 or possibly 1990 is the first movie, 27 years ago for today, or at least 2016.
Why did I read that as "didn't exist till the year of the lobster ends"? The fuck is wrong with me?
I wonder if there will be stuff in the book that wasn't in the original? Like the stuff with Bev and her "dad" that was pretty fucked up. That and er....the whole other thing with Bev in the sewers
Fukunaga pushed pretty hard for the mature and explicit stuff. However, the parents of the cast all pushed back even harder, and eventually that forced Fukunaga to walk out on the project, save for having a writing credit.
So I don't expect anything very explicit here.
So how intense do people want Georgie's death to be? Child death is hard enough to come by. The Blob 1987(?) is the only film I can think of where they graphically kill off a child. However, that kid death was bloodless, obscured by the 'blobs' goopiness, and it was an 11-12 year old kid. Georgie is 6 at the oldest, and looks every bit the tiny little precious angel the story and film wants him to be. So, how far do you think they'll push the envelope? Not to mention the handful of other deaths that are alluded to, and the one that I know of with the Creatuere from the Black Lagoon.
In my mind, I think they should go 'all' the way, but using the Hitchcock method. The set up is actually really perfect. They can use sound and implied imagery of Georgie struggling to pull free of the sewer drain, and the sound of fabric, skin, and bone breaking. Even a cut away where we see the half obscured sight through a neighbor's window, the way it would have been seen by the neighbor that first saw what happened in the book.
It'd be pretty daring, and upsetting. New Line has been one of the bolder studios, so perhaps this stands a chance?
In my mind, I think they should go 'all' the way, but using the Hitchcock method. The set up is actually really perfect. They can use sound and implied imagery of Georgie struggling to pull free of the sewer drain, and the sound of fabric, skin, and bone breaking. Even a cut away where we see the half obscured sight through a neighbor's window, the way it would have been seen by the neighbor that first saw what happened in the book.
It'd be pretty daring, and upsetting. New Line has been one of the bolder studios, so perhaps this stands a chance?
- AKA
- TresDias
I'd rather they not do that. There's no need for anything beyond what the original adaptation did, and if the subject itself isn't upsetting enough, the effect of it on his brother should provide the rest.
- AKA
- Yop
In many ways It is a psychological thriller, the monster
has several err, ways to present itself, and with a lot of them you could wonder "wait is this real or are the kids gone batshit and are they seeing shit?", especially like Bev's bloody bathroom and the fact only kids can see it. With that in mind, tension and implied effects would work I guess.
being an eldritch monstrosity and all
Clement Rage
Pro Adventurer
Well, I was thinking that if you were playing by the rules of a trailer, there are much better scenes to use as jumpscares than those. The point of the boat in sewer scene is that It is not trying to be scary. The second one would be fine if he just said 'we all float down here' once, rather than screaming on repeat.
That we could lose, it doesn't really have a point. While I can see them dialling back the gore, I hope some gets kept, because otherwise it's a different kind of movie. The great thing about IT is, it can use nearly every kind of horror without being out of place.
'
