Stephen King's "IT"

[Totenkindly]

Looks like they will be starting things up (after a few years of preplanning) this coming summer, 2015. They could have done a lot worse than get the director of "True Detective" direct this [possibly two-part] movie, so that's a positive thing. Still I don't know much about the other people involved.

It's no secret that Cary Fukunaga is adapting Stephen King's IT for the big screen. According to Vulture, the film is moving nicely along, and Fukunaga even plans to begin shooting next summer.

Dan Lin, the film's producer, told Vulture, “The idea is to start official prep in March for a summer shoot. Cary likes to develop things for a while, and we’ve been with this for about three or four years, so we’re super excited that he stayed with it. You guys are gonna be really excited.”

And before you cringe about another King adaptation, even the prolific author himself approves of the Fukunaga treatment:

“The most important thing is that Stephen King gave us his blessing,” Lin said. “We didn’t want to make this unless he felt it was the right way to go, and when we sent him the script, the response that Cary got back was, ‘Go with God, please! This is the version the studio should make.’ So that was really gratifying.”

Fukunaga Will Film Stephen King's IT Next Summer

King's movie sensibilities, though, are not quite his writing sensibilities as history has proven, so his endorsement on an adaptation doesn't necessarily mean much.

 

[Totenkindly]

Okay, more news on this. I read they wanted to start filming this summer, which is bothersome since I have not heard of any actual casting until this week.

Will Poulter Is Pennywise In The New "IT" | News | Dark Horizons

When I first saw this headline, I had a "WTH" response to it. The guy is 22, and the only thing I remembered seeing him in is "Meet the Millers" which wasn't high cinema, although the four leads were solid (the movie's problems were related to the writing/story, I think).

But then when I went back through his movie pedagree, I remembered I did see him a few years ago in "Dawn Treader" (he was good), and apparently he's been very solid even as a young actor in almost every movie he's been in. It looks like the only occasional flop on his resume was due to something besides his acting.

He also bagged the BAFTA Rising Star award in 2014, beating out actors I *have* heard of and/or respect, like Lupita Nyong'o, Léa Seydoux, and Dane DeHaan. So... I'm still wary, but open; this role is one of the best-known in the King mythos.

Also -- it's now being referred to as a two-parter. Unlike some of the split novels recently, the book deserves at least a two-parter to do it any justice, if not a high-quality one-season mini-series.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I doubt they can top this:

 

[Totenkindly]

Tim Curry was good casting. It's too bad the writing, format, and most of the other actors sucked.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Tim Curry was good casting. It's too bad the writing, format, and most of the other actors sucked.

I guess I don't remember very much else. Still, I don't think they can top it. Have they casted Pennywise? On this it all depends....

 

[Totenkindly]

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/s/loses-director-cary-fukunaga-191801827.html

Well, that sucks but I agree with him and am glad he walked....there is no freaking way that book can be effectively reduced to one movie, and they are idiots if they think otherwise. Even if they get it made, it'll be a joke.

 

[/DG/]

Is the incredibly stupid ending in the TV series taken from the book? If so, will it be in the 2015 reboot as well?

Ending spoiler

You know, where "it" was revealed to be a stupid fucking spider.

 

[Totenkindly]

Is the incredibly stupid ending in the TV series taken from the book? If so, will it be in the 2015 reboot as well?

Ending spoiler

You know, where "it" was revealed to be a stupid fucking spider.

That's the actual ending of the book, except it wasn't really "what" it was, it was the closest in approximation that the human mind could actually comprehend it to be. (IOW, it was far more than what it appeared to be.) That whole sequence should actually be pretty surreal versus literal, if they do it, since it involves sending folks to the Deadlights.

That's the problem with King adaptations -- he can pull off lots of cool shit on the page that when less abstract folks and/or even just plain old hacks try to convert it to a movie, they end up just really dumbing it down and/or doing such a literal translation that it ends up seeming really stupid. There are so few King adaptations that I would even consider good. I tried to watch the TV adaptation of IT within the last two years and could only make it through about twenty minutes before I quit.

I don't know if they will make the movie now, honestly. If they try to make it in a regular 2.5 hour movie, it's going to suck ass. I think it's stupid they can expand something like Hunger Games and The Hobbit to multiple movies unnecessarily, but they can't actually decide to spring for just two movies to fulfill a book that NEEDS that much space to operate. "IT" is 1100 pages long in hardback, and that's not large typeface; the Hobbit was what, 200-250 or something ridiculous, with smaller pages?

 

[windoverlake]

Such a bummer. I really wanted to see Fukunaga's take on horror. He's good at mood.

 

[Totenkindly]

Such a bummer. I really wanted to see Fukunaga's take on horror. He's good at mood.

Yeah. That's what I thought too. Finally, a director who would focus more on the intangibles rather than obsessing over the more superficial elements of King's work.

The whole thing might be shelved for the meanwhile.

I wonder how much the budget was off. I bet King could have paid for it out of pocket, lol.

And sure, maybe the Poltergeist remake's lack of box-office oomph scared them... but if you make a decent movie, you typically get something out of it. I'm tired of all the hack-job remakes nowadays. (Point Blank?? really?? A remake??) Did Poltergeist need a remake? Not really... It's like making a copy of a copy.

The King adaptations that have done the best have either been so surreal that they're creepy in their own right (like Kubrick's "The Shining"), or Darabont's work where he actually manages to capture the positive end of King's works which allows any darkness to play better. All the failures usually just stem from people caught up in the superficial elements. IT is really a beautiful book, when you contrast the high moments against the dark.

 

[windoverlake]

Yeah. That's what I thought too. Finally, a director who would focus more on the intangibles rather than obsessing over the more superficial elements of King's work.

The whole thing might be shelved for the meanwhile.

I wonder how much the budget was off. I bet King could have paid for it out of pocket, lol.

And sure, maybe the Poltergeist remake's lack of box-office oomph scared them... but if you make a decent movie, you typically get something out of it. I'm tired of all the hack-job remakes nowadays. (Point Blank?? really?? A remake??) Did Poltergeist need a remake? Not really... It's like making a copy of a copy.

The King adaptations that have done the best have either been so surreal that they're creepy in their own right (like Kubrick's "The Shining"), or Darabont's work where he actually manages to capture the positive end of King's works which allows any darkness to play better. All the failures usually just stem from people caught up in the superficial elements. IT is really a beautiful book, when you contrast the high moments against the dark.

YES, EXACTLY!

Anyway, I hope the budget stuff gets worked out with Fukunaga.

 

[Totenkindly]

YES, EXACTLY!

I was just watching the beginning of "The Dead Zone" last night on Netflix. I like David Cronenberg. I like Christopher Walken. But I'm simultaneously reading The Dead Zone, and what I hate is that King has this guy who is more like a kind-hearted but tragic figure; he renders Johnny so well before the accident, and how he and Sarah were just starting to really fall in love with each other after some heart-ache she had suffered -- she was warming up to Johnny and felt like her life was finally starting to heal -- and then there was an accident that was just about two teens drag-racing, and Johnny was in a cab. The movie throws out just about everything and you lose the human element of Johnny -- you just get thrown into the psychic stuff and Johnny just seems kind of weird and cold/distant to start with. I think King's take is more poignant, you have a guy who is kind of quirky-funny, and casual, and just kind of sweet who is then isolated by his accident and gifts, which will of course make a great contrast with the climax of the story.

In this case, it could just be a problem with having to pack a book into two hours. But it's sad. Much of the time, watching a King movie is telling you nothing about King's actual writing.

Anyway, I hope the budget stuff gets worked out with Fukunaga.

Me too. That article suggests maybe the studio can opt to renegotiate. (Which apparently has happened in the past.) It would be a shame to not have this attempt made.

 

[windoverlake]

I was just watching the beginning of "The Dead Zone" last night on Netflix. I like David Cronenberg. I like Christopher Walken. But I'm simultaneously reading The Dead Zone, and what I hate is that King has this guy who is more like a kind-hearted but tragic figure; he renders Johnny so well before the accident, and how he and Sarah were just starting to really fall in love with each other after some heart-ache she had suffered -- she was warming up to Johnny and felt like her life was finally starting to heal -- and then there was an accident that was just about two teens drag-racing, and Johnny was in a cab. The movie throws out just about everything and you lose the human element of Johnny -- you just get thrown into the psychic stuff and Johnny just seems kind of weird and cold/distant to start with. I think King's take is more poignant, you have a guy who is kind of quirky-funny, and casual, and just kind of sweet who is then isolated by his accident and gifts, which will of course make a great contrast with the climax of the story.

In this case, it could just be a problem with having to pack a book into two hours. But it's sad. Much of the time, watching a King movie is telling you nothing about King's actual writing.

King is so different on the page. It wasn't until I actually read King that I began to see how caricatured his works is on film.

Me too. That article suggests maybe the studio can opt to renegotiate. (Which apparently has happened in the past.) It would be a shame to not have this attempt made.

I agree. I wonder if perhaps they're just shocked with Fukunaga's budget, because his reputation is still relatively linked to independent, smaller-scale productions. Maybe once they cool down a bit and sit with the numbers they'll realise the idea is good and get it back on track.

On a deeper level, though, I really want this to get back on, because if it's not Fukunaga's script they're going to go dumb again and make, like you said, "a copy of a copy". And one of the major reasons he got the IT gig had to have been because of TRUE DETECTIVE, which was unrelentingly moody and introspective. Fukunaga is versatile and competent, and certainly not a one-trick pony. Beyond the success of TD, I don't think Hollywood "gets" him yet.

 

[Totenkindly]

Well, Fukunaga does have a few other irons in the fire, but from what I was reading this has been a labor of love for him -- he's put in a lot of time of this, it's his "dream project" -- and King is supportive of his efforts. So I'm hoping the studio comes around.

yeah, they could make a mistake; at the same time, this could be a huge payoff for them. I mean, Darabont didn't have much more of a track record either -- he had directed a short film and a TV film, and had worked as a writer on "The Fly II" and "The Blob" remake and "Elm Street 3" for goodness sake... and then he pulls "The Shawshank Redemption" (a minor property of Kings, it's a 100-page novella with no real horror elements, even if it is one of his most beautiful pieces of writing) out of his bumm and knocks it out of the park ... it's still No.1 on the IMDB 250 List.

Why did Shawshank work? It's probably one of the closest-to-text renditions of a King story I've seen (including the ending). And it's appealing across genres. But still... if you can take "IT" and give it some character depth so that the people are relating first as a human drama, THEN layer in the horror elements... you've now expanded your audience based AND you've created something that isn't just about Cheap Shock of the Week. I just really love the characters, and the whole parallel story between them as kids and then repeated as adults is so evocative. (Including IT being a historical horror -- he's on a continuing feeding cycle and has been for a long time. In a sense, Derry is just one big haunted house with a recurring ghost.)

 

[windoverlake]

Why did Shawshank work? It's probably one of the closest-to-text renditions of a King story I've seen (including the ending). And it's appealing across genres. But still... if you can take "IT" and give it some character depth so that the people are relating first as a human drama, THEN layer in the horror elements... you've now expanded your audience based AND you've created something that isn't just about Cheap Shock of the Week. I just really love the characters, and the whole parallel story between them as kids and then repeated as adults is so evocative. (Including IT being a historical horror -- he's on a continuing feeding cycle and has been for a long time. In a sense, Derry is just one big haunted house with a recurring ghost.)

You speak truth.

 

[Fun in the Sun]

It is my favorite King book. I loved everything about it. I really can't wait for the remake to come out.

 

[Totenkindly]

It is my favorite King book. I loved everything about it. I really can't wait for the remake to come out.

Yeah, it's actually my favorite too (followed closely by the Stand, and some of his other early stuff). I remember the first time I read it -- during finals week at college and during the three-hour car ride home. (It had just come out that fall. I guess that dates me, huh? )

 

[Fun in the Sun]

Yeah, it's actually my favorite too (followed closely by the Stand, and some of his other early stuff). I remember the first time I read it -- during finals week at college and during the three-hour car ride home. (It had just come out that fall. I guess that dates me, huh? )

Yeah, It was a Lovecraftian Nightmare. Read it when I was twelve and reread it when I was thirty, kind of like the characters in the plot. Loved the Stand too....and the Shining, Salem's Lot...God I love S.K.

 

[Totenkindly]

Okay. Proof is in the pudding.

IT is releasing on Sept 8 2017. My understanding it's part 1 of a duology, this one focused on the loser's club. I have watched the trailer. I like it, it actually captures the sense and scene-age from the book in a great way; I feel guardedly optimistic, even excited on some level while trying not to get my hopes up too high.

I was disappointed when Cary Fukunaga left the project. However, I am a fan of Andrés Muschietti's "Mama" -- it does has its flaws but is visually provocative and moody and actually possesses some pathos as well, and might have been his first big budget movie. I know he has the vision to make this movie more than a bunch of gore and jump scares, he's going to go for the human story behind it. But still... kind of an untested director in terms of dealing with a big property.

I carried some of those concerns here, his movie would succeed in part due to a strong script if he could get one in place. The source material is great, there's just so much of it... and you have to get it narrowed down to the core elements if you're only filming a four hour story from a 1100 page book.

The trailer is very effective, though, and when I saw it, I was like, "Yeah. That's IT." Not necessarily just focusing on Pennywise, but the look and feel and pacing of the scenes. I'm hoping the trailer is representative of the actual release cut.

The Wikipedia entry for the movie has some decent info in it:
It (2017 film) - Wikipedia

The movie effort will be rated R, thank god. It kind of needed to be, if it was to go where it needs to go.

The kid playing Big Bill Denbrough isn't one I know well, but he was great in Midnight Special... he didn't necessarily say a ton but evoked his character well and had to do so against decent actors like Kirsten Dunst, Michael Shannon, and Joel Edgerton. So I think he can handle it. The kid playing Richie is Finn whassisname from Stranger THings.

 

[Tater]

That trailer looks pretty good! Kinda reminds me of Super 8, but darker. And with a clown.