It

Interslicery

Interslicery

.....
CAN WE PLEASE FIND A WAY TO MAKE PEOPLE SHUT THE FUCK UP WHEN IN A GOD DAMN MOVIE THEATRE?!?

Great movie. Had it ruined for me by shitty fucking audience. Guys who worked on this should have worked on the Nightmare on Elm St reboot
 
C

ChipNoir

Pro Adventurer
Interslicery said:
CAN WE PLEASE FIND A WAY TO MAKE PEOPLE SHUT THE FUCK UP WHEN IN A GOD DAMN MOVIE THEATRE?!?

Great movie. Had it ruined for me by shitty fucking audience. Guys who worked on this should have worked on the Nightmare on Elm St reboot
Click to expand...

Yeah well, Platinum Dunes was buying up all the rights they could, and whose gonna argue with Michael Bay's money?

But this should come as no surprise. New Lines produced this movie. Y'know, the House That Freddy Built. And they HAVE been buzzing for a new Elm Street script, though reboot, sequel, or whatever, we have no idea.

Also goddamnit, for anyone whose seen it now, I think I may have ruined Pennywise a little. Now every time I see the clip of the first time we see his teeth, it makes me think of Ultros.
 
Last edited:
Cthulhu

Cthulhu

Administrator
AKA
Yop
X-SOLDIER said:
It'll also be interesting to see how much, if at all, they utilize the child actors, since in that interview they mentioned that a few of them have already grown a bunch, and their voices have changed even just over the course of filming, let alone between the gap that a sequel would take place over.
Click to expand...

Did you read the books? If not, spoiler tagg'd:
I read earlier that the sequel would be the adult children returning. The books switch between the children and adult versions of them returning, both parties playing out a similar story; the children do this coming-of-age thing, while the adults deal with adulting, but both culminate in a confrontation with It in the sewers. Ergo,
they probably won't need the child actors in part 2.
 
Ghost X

Ghost X

Moderator
The uncanny does work well in horror, and I certainly preference it.

As for this remake, or whatever this modern reinvention is, I think I might see it at some point since I've only seen good reviews, and I'm dressing up as Pennywise next week :P.
 
Shademp

Shademp

420
I know now that I can't watch this movie because of what happens at the very beginning.

Georgie gets his arm bitten off by IT before being dragged down the sewers.

Saw the clip on YouTube and I'm experiencing a range of negative emotions. There are two forms of trauma I have great difficulty watching on screen: Mutilation and children getting hurt.
I did not expect this new version of IT to combine the two so intimately.
I feel like the filmmakers crossed a line here. One that I have never seen crossed before and that I quite frankly wish I had never seen at all.

Even if this is the worst that the movie gets in terms of
child gore
I can't stomach the idea of sitting through this movie, knowing what you're treated to at the very beginning. I'm sorry but this is too much for me.
 
Interslicery

Interslicery

.....
Just found out that IT is rated 14 in Canada. Apparently we're cool with
6 yr olds having their arms bitten off and crawling around crying

Weird rating decision.
 
X-SOLDIER

X-SOLDIER

Harbinger O Great Justice
AKA
X
@Shad: I'm not sure why you feel that the filmmakers crossed a line with that, since that's literally exactly what happens in the book in the opening. The original tv miniseries even mentions it happening despite not showing it (since the original one was a series on public television, that wasn't really an option).

Also, for that review, if they start off by saying that the source material is problematic and not great, I don't really think that their opinions about the film are gonna be all that enlightening or focused on what makes the film great. For example: The shifts in tone are really shifts that work along with the points of view of the kids at those times in the film. It's not the film being uneven whatsoever.

Counterpoint review (and I listen to all my reviews and stuff at 2x speed these days):







X :neo:
 
Shademp

Shademp

420
X-SOLDIER said:
@Shad: I'm not sure why you feel that the filmmakers crossed a line with that
Click to expand...
Because I find showing to be more shocking than telling or implying. Keep in mind I say "crossed a line" to represent MY OWN borders. For example Game of Thrones crossed a line for me with the Red Wedding
what with stabbing a pregnant woman right in the belly
but I'm not saying that they are in the morally wrong for shooting that scene. Such things just leave me feeling damaged. There is no enjoyment in that for me.

X-SOLDIER said:
since that's literally exactly what happens in the book in the opening.
Click to expand...
I've heard conflicting stories about how the event transpires in the book, both from experts and from casual fans, so I don't know who to trust anymore. But in the end what happens in the book doesn't matter to me anyway. The book isn't relevant to my reaction towards the aforementioned movie clip.
 
Interslicery

Interslicery

.....
Yeah, he's kinda fallen from grace a fair bit. Especially since he started incorporating the bits (which mostly aren't funny) into his reviews.

Anyway, on topic, I'm gonna see this again this week. Probly tomorrow night. May not have the same impact as a first showing, and a lot of the stuff in here really benefits from a first showing, but there's some bits that I just want to see again. Like the scene with Georgie. It's so good. And mainly the stuff with Pennywise in general, the kids were great, but Pennywise is the creme-de-la-creme star of this production. That and the creative minds/effects wzaards behind him.
I may have had a couple to drink tonight
 
C

ChipNoir

Pro Adventurer
Interslicery said:
Yeah, he's kinda fallen from grace a fair bit. Especially since he started incorporating the bits (which mostly aren't funny) into his reviews.

Anyway, on topic, I'm gonna see this again this week. Probly tomorrow night. May not have the same impact as a first showing, and a lot of the stuff in here really benefits from a first showing, but there's some bits that I just want to see again. Like the scene with Georgie. It's so good. And mainly the stuff with Pennywise in general, the kids were great, but Pennywise is the creme-de-la-creme star of this production. That and the creative minds/effects wzaards behind him.
I may have had a couple to drink tonight
Click to expand...

Clips have been popping up all over. I don't think I've ever seen a movie so eagerly spoiled. And being able to see the CGi repeatedly has taken away some of the benefit of only getting the one chance to see it and letting your mind polish out the defects.

However, I just love the artistic design of Pennywise in monster form. There's something so unnaturally fish-like to his face when he chomp down on Georgie's arm, with his eyes going in seperate directions, and more teeth than he even needs.
 
Last edited:
C

ChipNoir

Pro Adventurer
I'm not entirely sure about the Mike thing. I'd be nice to see him reclaim his original purpose since the movie sidelines him way too hard. But that means undoing what the movie tried to do for Ben in the first place. Unless he can act as someone that Mike can discuss this with. I still have a strong vision of Ben becoming a teacher. So he'd be the Banner to Mike's Stark.
 
C

ChipNoir

Pro Adventurer
X-SOLDIER said:
So, today I learned that — not only did the director avoid watching Stranger Things completely until he'd finished IT, Bill Skarsgård had a particular talent used for Pennywise that you might've thought was a digital effect.





X :neo:
Click to expand...

So this has been bugging me and I'm trying to pick apart a concept that probably wasn't even intentional.

I really get the vibe that they tried to portray Patrick Hocksteader as a molester and sadist, in place of a sociopathic murderer of animals (and one kid brother). I think they knew that the book version of Patrick crosses too many lines, even for a movie like this.

But the way Patrick looked at Reggie the first time we see him, and then the fact that IT chooses the form of zombie children kinda sticks out to me. IT picks specific fears for each of it's victims, but Patrick is the only character that doesn't have a specific form explained. Even Stan, as subtle as his cues are, made it kinda clear that he has OCD, and thus the Painted Lady scares the crap out of him.

Do you think Patrick had a bit more buzzing around in his make up during this movie, and will we find out in part II that he was connected with some of the missing children?
 
X-SOLDIER

X-SOLDIER

Harbinger O Great Justice
AKA
X
ChipNoir said:
So this has been bugging me and I'm trying to pick apart a concept that probably wasn't even intentional.

I really get the vibe that they tried to portray Patrick Hocksteader as a molester and sadist, in place of a sociopathic murderer of animals (and one kid brother). I think they knew that the book version of Patrick crosses too many lines, even for a movie like this.

But the way Patrick looked at Reggie the first time we see him, and then the fact that IT chooses the form of zombie children kinda sticks out to me. IT picks specific fears for each of it's victims, but Patrick is the only character that doesn't have a specific form explained. Even Stan, as subtle as his cues are, made it kinda clear that he has OCD, and thus the Painted Lady scares the crap out of him.

Do you think Patrick had a bit more buzzing around in his make up during this movie, and will we find out in part II that he was connected with some of the missing children?
Click to expand...

It could be that he's afraid of what's happened to the missing kids and becoming one of them, so that it might've just been a way for the film to telegraph early on the fact that there were a significantly larger number of kids down there in a way that makes it easy to understand aside from just the kids discussing the disappearances and finding the shoe.

If he was afraid of the missing kids that he'd bullied and or chased off coming back for him,
I could definitely see that being a possibility as well, though I'm not sure how much it'd be explored in the future with him also having vanished.

Related: I like how the film carefully avoided directly addressing the fact that all the kids who were floating were (almost certainly) dead when they came down, in order to maintain focus on the Losers' Club making their pact and splitting off at the end.

Gods, I want to go see this again already.




X :neo:
 
C

ChipNoir

Pro Adventurer
I guessed as much. The way that the film jumps around may feel like it's just trying to get from scare to scare. But I have to wonder if they aren't also leaving a lot of spaces for the film to go in and retroactively slot puzzle pieces in. There's almost a whole year that passes between Georgie's death and where the events kick off in 89. Every scare also has points where the story can jump in to add things, especially during act three.

Even the final climax may lead to different places, due to where the story moves around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom