The 1990 version was excellent and considered a classic so what's the point of doing it again? No one remembers the 1997 remake of The Shining. Same with Carrie, the 1976 version was a classic and no one remembers the 2002 or 2013 versions. People need to stop watching remakes if they want writers to stop making them.
share[deleted]
It's not pointless considering the TV series left out so much from the novel and had to tame down the violence. Not to mention they didn't have a budget to do most of the special effects that this story requires.
I'm excited for the "remake" since they're sticking true to the novel and will include all those terrifying chapters we read.
My motto for remakes is if you don't want to see it it, then don't see it; don't rain on everyone else's parade who is genuinely excited about it.
I liked the original tv series in parts but thought a lot of it was cheesy. The source material is great and unique so it would be great to see another representation of that. I'm not sure this remake will be it though. Changing the timelines changes the story and I'm not sure about the creative team behind this project.
shareI agree. The original has become a classic. I don't think that I have ever met any adult who has never seen it. Hollywood is just bankrupt creatively. It's what i stopped watching new movies and tv series around ten years ago- nothing new.
shareWhile i agree mostly on this topic about remakes the book had so much more. When I read it I had to check the cover and make sure it was the same story. That is how different it was. It takes the form of all the universal monsters like Dracula, the wolfman, creature ect. Also we find out where It came from and his influence on the town's history.
shareif done right this could be good. I (like you) have often thought about everything that the movie left out too. It would need to be two or three parts though. And I would like for them to use practical effects. CGI just doesn't look real. It looks like a video game (have you seen the star wars Prequels recently? They look more dated then the original films). But to be honest I just don't think this will be good. It will have either have gore for the sake or gore (see evil dead remake) or it will be too cartoony.
shareI heard nothing but positive receptions from people who saw it. I heard it's gory/gruesome but not for the sake of shock value like evil dead. Remember the book was very gruesome as well.
shareI don't know how relevant those monsters would be in the 80's. They'd be more frightened of Jason, Freddy and Michael Myers.
share[deleted]
Enigmatic-Ocean, yes, I agree, "It" is definitely a classic! It was an excellent film that I very much enjoyed...several times. 😉 I, too, have stopped watching most new shows on TV for the past 8 to 10 years at least, I've, pretty much, only watched films. For about 6 years, I didn't watch TV at all. I haven't like anything new that they've put out there in years...except I DO love "The Walking Dead", so I binge watched it recently. And I like "American Horror Story", "Bates Motel" is pretty good, "True Detective" Season 1 only, I loved! Have seen it a few times now, and maybe a couple other's. But all those are on Netflix so, generally, when I DO watch TV now, it's mostly only the old shows....like from early 80's and older.
Same goes for films...I watch, mostly, older films...like, at least, 10 or 15+ years older. Most new films I've watched in the past 6 or so years have mostly been crap! I might have gotten, maybe, 9 or 10 films out of 50 that I really enjoyed, the other's just weren't worth remembering so I don't know what films they were anymore. I'm real good at forgetting cause, since 2005, my short term flew out the window and continues to get worse with time...I can totally forget something within minutes...even important things.
Anyways, I'm hoping "Alien: Covenant" will be good cause I'm planning on giving it a whirl. I was sorely disappointed that "Brimstone", which came out on March 10th, wasn't playing anywhere near me cause I waited for a year to see that in the theatre! The closest place I found it playing was over 400 miles away from me...that really sucked. 😒 I did, however, get to watch it on Comcast OnDemand the same day it hit theatres, so I was thankful for that at least...but I'm still angry that I didn't get to see it at the theatre. And, by the way, I loved the film! 😄😄👍👍👍👍
Okies, I'm done rambling...I always ramble when I'm tired...sorry. I should probably just go to sleep...lol. 😉
[deleted]
Earl, I agree with you 100%! I do not like any of those remakes that you named, the originals were excellent but I thought the remakes were a disaster! There aren't but maybe a few remakes that I liked more than the originals. I'm thinking that maybe they do remakes because the younger crowd doesn't want to see older films, they want something fresh. Personally, I don't see how they can possibly make this film better than the original. I loved it!
I see that Javier Botet is in the remake of "It"...there's your SFX for ya. He was the one who played the crooked man in "The Conjuring 2" and the mama in "Mama" and several other films too. He's 6' 6¾" at 120 lbs, so he's super thin and has elongated features, due to Marfan Syndrome...he's also a contortionist. Javier is also going to be in the new film coming out on May 19th, "Alien: Covenant", as the alien. I can't wait to see that!
Anyways, that's my theory on why they do remakes...to freshen up old films for the younger crowd.
I actually disagree with much of this.
First off, It wouldn't be a remake in the traditional sense - it would be a re-adaptation. Much like how Carrie (1976) was an adaptation of the novel, and the 2002 and 2013 Carries would be re-adaptations of the novel, not remakes of the movie.
And It was a television mini-series that left a lot out, due to the fact it was a television production. It missed so much, and honestly, as a fan of the book, I'm disappointed each time I see it (despite the decent performances from all involved).
I remember the 1997 re-adaptation of The Shining, and consider it a better movie than the 1980 film. I also remember the 2002 Carrie more fondly than the 1976 movie. But those aren't traditional remakes - they're re-adaptations.
Cabin Fever (2013) was a pointless remake. Martyrs (2013) was a pointless remake. Many American remakes of Asian horror films are pointless remakes.
It is not at all a pointless remake. The 1990 television movie left so much from the book out, and it looks like this movie will finally give fans of the book more substance, which I'm enthralled about.
Even though we disagree, I hope this finds you well.
A few other pointless remakes were Maniac (2012), Get Carter, Footloose, Red Dawn, Planet of the Apes, Ghostbusters, Psycho, Rollerball, Arthur, The Karate Kid remake was only made so that Will Smith could get his son into a movie. The 1986 version of The Fly was a classic but I heard they're going to remake it again, don't know why.
We are never going to stop remakes. I wish that remakes would be better versions of not so great movies with great potential, but they probably won't bring in the cash. Some remakes have been great movies and some would argue better than the originals. The Thing (1982) is one of my favourites. I also love My Fair Lady (1964) which is a movie version of the 1956 stage musical, which is was an adaptation of the 1938 British film Pygmalion, which adapted the 1913 stage version. So remakes are certainly not new.
I agree with you when it comes to book adaptations, I think it's a totally different ball game. When a film isn't the original source material there will always be room for other visions. Pride and Prejudice is a great example of this. I think many consider the 1995 mini series to be their favourite, but each version has their pros and cons. We all know the issues King had with Kubrick's Shining. Regardless of what you think of the mini series, you can't deny that King had the right to try to make an adaptation of his story.
I don't think anyone who reads a book before watching the movie version will ever be truly satisfied with the movie, as the vision is already created. Favourite parts can be left out of the movie, characters may not be what we pictured (for me, Clark Gable is a horrible Rhett Butler), settings can be different, etc. I had issues with the 1990 mini series too. For the most part, I enjoyed it, but there were things that if I had control, I might have changed. I thought that the second part of the 1990 fell short and was not as scary as it could have been. But it was TV. I have hope that this version will be scarier.
Hahahaha..."Classic". Bwahahahahaha!!!
For real, though, aside from Tim Curry, it was LAME.
Sometime in the late 1990s/early 2000s, while I was living with my mom and my sister in a two bedroom apartment in Beaverton, Oregon, United States, my mom asked me to go to Blockbuster Video to rent a Stephen King movie; no Stephen King movie in particular. While I was at Blockbuster Video on my cell phone talking to my mom, I told her what Stephen King movies were available to rent. When I saw the 1990 movie "It" on the shelf, I read the description to my mom and she told me to rent that movie, which I did. When I got home, my mom and I watched the whole four hours and we both really enjoyed the movie. After that day, I have not seen the movie since and have actually forgotten what the movie is mostly about. Not long ago, maybe a few months ago, I found out that a new movie to the 1986 Stephen King novel "It" was being made and releasing in 2017, "It," and became excited about the new movie. Since I have never read the 1986 Stephen King novel "It" and have wanted to but kept putting it off, I have decided that since the new movie is coming out on Friday, September 8, 2017 according to IMDb, I would read the book. After reading the book, I will watch the 1990 movie "It" over again and then will watch the 2017 movie "It," probably at the movie theater, so I can compare all three and see how accurate the two movies are to the book and how the movies stack up to each other. To accomplish this, I have already put a hold on a physical book copy and a book on CD copy of "It" at my local public library and am waiting for the both of them to go to held status. I am also going to put the 1990 movie "It" on hold, too. I cannot wait and am patiently waiting.
shareTo be fair, I haven't seen the 1990 movie in a long time, so I'm just going off my vague memory. Still though, my vague memory tells me it was cheesy as all get out. Again, props to Tim Curry, he nailed the characterization of Pennywise, but that was the only impressive part. (SPOILER ALERT: ...Um, oops, how do I do spoilers on this site? Well anyway, just don't read any further, lol.
Anyway, what I was going to say is that there is more to IT (the entity, not the novel/film) than just Pennywise. IT can take many forms, the clown is just its favorite, and as I recall the 1990 movie doesn't do these other forms justice in terms of special effects.)
I say bring on the remake. The 1990 version was awful.
share