Stephen King's "It" headed to the big screen

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I don't hold out much hope... the mini-series, while dated and a bit cheesey, is still fairly decent considering it was made for TV.

I'd still just love for someone to release a 1/6 version of Tim Curry as IT :rock

clown1.jpg
 
Sadly, it does. I was hoping it wouldn't happen. They've been talking about it for a while.

Meh. Who cares? If it's good, cool. If it's bad, so what? It's not like the craptacular Psycho remake, or any other remake, takes anything away from the original.

If a crappy remake somehow prevents a better original film from being made, then I'll grab my torch and pitchfork. But I'm not sure that's the case.
 
This will be caca. The original is nothing amazing, though I still enjoy watching it, but I think a remake will just be a new age Hollywood horror film with little resemblance to the source material other than Pennywise.

Poop.


That said, I will still watch it.
 
This will be caca. The original is nothing amazing, though I still enjoy watching it, but I think a remake will just be a new age Hollywood horror film with little resemblance to the source material other than Pennywise.

Poop.


That said, I will still watch it.

 
King's novels are big let downs for me. Which is why I don't read his books anymore. He builds a great story, then it appears he doesn't know how to end it. Don't get me wrong he has a handful of good stories, but as a whole...eh.
Pennywise is one of my all-time favorite characters creepy as hell, but the ending to that book was like what? The Stand is another one. Now I'm sad.:D
 
This is not a remake. The first movie was based on a book. Therefore, another movie based on the same book is not a remake of the old movie - it's a readaptation of the book.

Carpenter's Thing was not a remake of the 1950's movie - it was another adaptation (much more faithfully) of the original novella. Halloween and Friday the 13th are remakes, since they were movies to begin with, so going back to that well is a remake. Remakes tend to suck, because they only have the original film to work with - readaptations have far more potential, because the original books have far more involved plot lines, and a screenwriter who is great at adapting a book can take advantage of that.
 
I found this over at Dreadcentral.com :

Heard from Dave Kajganich, the writer of the upcoming theatrical remake of Stephen King's IT, recently, and he was kind enough to give us an update on how this massive story is being streamlined into one film.

"The remake will be set in the mid-1980s and in the present almost equally -- mirroring the twenty-odd-year gap King uses in the book -- and with a *great* deal of care and attention paid to the backstories of all the characters," says Kajganich. "I think the real twist here is that my pitch to WB -- which they've assured me they're on board for -- is that this will not be PG-13. This will be R. Which means we can really honor the book and engage with the traumas (both the paranormal ones and those they deal with at home and school) that these character endure."

"I plan to be very protective of the book," Kajganich continues. "The reality, though, is that WB wants to do this as a single film, so I will have to kill a few darlings to make that happen. You have my promise, though, that I will do this with the utmost humility and respect for King's work. He's the King, after all, and I intend to continue to pledge to him my allegiance."

He had me at rated R. Dave has also assured us that even though what happens to the script is out of his control once he turns it in, the producers are top notch and willing to go to bat to bring the above to fruition. Look for more on IT soon!


Obviously the jury will be out for while still but that's encouraging for now.
 
Back
Top