In old It with Tim curry they tell whole book but this one they won't .
shareAs long as they milk the juiciest, best bits from the book for an over 2 hour running time, and make it damn entertaining, it probably won't matter.
"That's it. It bit into his arm-pit. Like It wanted to eat him, man. Like It wanted to eat his heart." shareIn the old mini series, they had 2 1hr and 30min episodes. This remake will tell only the kids' story and then a sequel coming either 2018 or 2019 will come out telling the adult portion of the novel.
shareWell judging by the length of the film (2 and a half hours I think) we're gonna get a damn good amount of stuff
shareThe mini-series covered the entirety of their version of the story, but they didn't tell the whole book... not even close.
This movie will cover half of their version of the story. It looks like they include much more of the content from the book, but they will leave out much of the book as well.
It's not a remake. The made for TV miniseries was just that, on TV and a miniseries...not a movie. There's a difference.
So annoying that people constantly talk about the It miniseries as some great thing. It was garbage.
I don't necessarily think it was 'garbage,' I mean it was originally planned to be this massive 18 hour event done by George Romero, but ABC didn't think it needed to be that big of a deal. Tommy Lee Wallace did a pretty good job with what he could, but there were a lot of restraints. Take a huge novel, condense it to a miniseries and make it safe for TV on a strict budget. For me, it was what it was, just that. Could have been better, sure. But it also could have been A LOT worse. the script that was floating around by Dave Kajganich years ago, now, that I'd definitely throw into the garbage pile.
"Stay Bloody!" - Seth from Blood Puddle Reviews
Who cares what it was supposed to be? Who cares about scripts that were never used? I'm referring to the actual miniseries that was on TV, not what could have been on TV. Garbage is a bit harsh I suppose, but it wasn't good.
The fact that it was on network TV is what contributed to it being bad, which is the point. This movie being made in 2016 is going to be much different. It's no remake, it should stop being compared to a TV miniseries from 1990.
Lol,I only brought up what it was originally intended to be because, yes, it could have been a lot more faithful. Wasn't the case, as we all know, but the point is adaptations can only be as close to the source material as they're allowed to be. And if it the film makers were given creative freedom, we'd likely get something a hell of a lot closer to the book. That's what caused George Romero to back out. I feel somewhat bad for Tommy Lee Wallace since he came into the project and had to make the best of what he could out of the condensed TV version of SK's IT. If anyone is to blame for what the miniseries being what it is, I'd go after the network who threw out the idea of the original adaptation, and thought it'd be better if all the details that make the novel so great were eliminated.
For being what it was, I thought they put in a lot of little moments from the book that most wouldn't even have caught onto. References and quotes that may have been trivial to some viewers, but made those of us who know the book smile because they were able to put in certain lines directly from the book. A lot was changed, no doubt. But, if a studio came to you with the task to adapt a lengthy book into a network tv miniseries on a pretty low budget, I'd really be interested to see how your take on it would turn out. For what it was, I thought they did a good job, and there have definitely been WAY worse adaptations of King's work, both on TV miniseries and film form. I'd re-watch the IT miniseries again long before I re-watch Cell, for instance.
Also, I do agree that people should push the miniseries out of their mind when viewing this new adaptation. I've been one of the greatest defenders in threads that write it off as a "just another remake." I'm actually staying positive and hoping this movie will be a good adaptation and faithful to the source material, as different as some of the changes they've made, like the timeline. That bugged me at first, but I've learned to deal with it. No use in complaining until I have actual complaints, and I won't know if I do or not until the film comes out.
I also just get confused sometimes, as to why if the miniseries is disregarded as such 'garbage,' then why do people have such a hard time forcing the image of Tim Curry's Pennywise out of their minds, and have to keep comparing the new one to him? It seems to be a very divided argument on this board...
"Stay Bloody!" - Seth from Blood Puddle Reviews
I just get tired of constantly reading about what could have been or should have been. Not just on this board, but all boards. On this one it's about Cary Fukunaga and his script (which is now approaching legendary status it seems). On other boards if one doesn't like a movie someone will give a reference to something that was explained in a BluRay extra special edition commentary of the Directors final Cut. Obviously you know what you're talking about, but it's just something I read too much of, nothing personal.
Fair points about the miniseries, but I guess I've never really liked any miniseries. I understand there are budgetary constraints and network television is conservative (more so when "It" was made), which is why I don't like it I guess.
Again, garbage might be a bit harsh. Tim Curry is good but a single actor being good can't save a production. I also feel people are nostalgic for something that scared them when they were younger. Tim Curry is good in general...he's just an enjoyable actor to watch in my opinion.
That's understandable. It's not for everybody, and it doesn't quite get to the place the book did. But there are aspects of it that I did enjoy. The score for one, I thought the music was great. The kid actors did good, and despite Curry not loving the makeup, he seemed to at least enjoy his role, it shows in his performance.
And I get it, because there is so much "remake of the original" talk going on, so I wasn't trying to come down on you. I never get into a discussion that could become an argument without having valid points to bring up. I know people will like what they like and usually hate what they dislike.
I see the series as a "good effort" even if it fails to meet all the expectations of great scenes from the book. If I were a teacher and a student gave me the movie version of a book report, I'd give him a C for trying, but overall handing in a rushed assignment, especially the second half of it.
"Stay Bloody!" - Seth from Blood Puddle Reviews
The thing about movie adaptations of books is that not everything that works in a novel will work on screen, as long as they capture the essence of the story they don't need to put every tiny detail in it. I think they did this with the mini-series and it worked really well at the time, but It needs an update in my opinion. This movie adaptation seems to be covering a lot more material from the book which the mini-series left out or wasn't able to cover, which is really exciting, but obviously they can't put everything in. Also I can't wait to see Pennywise on the big screen.
shareExactly. In fact, I think some moments should be reserved for the book. They work well on page but would have trouble translating to the screen. They tried to do a giant spider of the miniseries and we all know how that turned out.
"Stay Bloody!" - Seth from Blood Puddle Reviews
If you want a film to be like a book, you're more endlessly stupid than I can express without facial reactions.
A film is generally an interpretation through a director's imagination. If you like the book then read it every so often. There. Problem solved.
A book is an author's imagination as interpreted through the reader's. A film leaves a lot less to be interpreted by the viewer and will therefore not please all fans of the book.
Loved the mini-series as a kid and I felt it caught a lot of the novel's feeling. The second part had serious problems though (note the director wrote the second part, but not the first). All in all, it used much of the novel whilst taking some liberties.
You'll like the movie or you won't. There are myriad reasons for either eventuality, but how close it follows the novel shouldn't be one of them.
Incidentally, from what I've read this movie will explore more of the novel than the mini-series did.
https://junkieintheattic.wordpress.com
Thanks wanted to know
share[deleted]