Stephen King's "IT"

[Totenkindly]

I kind of steeled myself to the realization that the movie was not going to make me feel the same way I did when reading the book, so I could take it more on its own terms. I dunno.

When I read "The Body" as a kid, I seem to remember him writing of the dead body smelling like "old farts" or something to that effect. While that worked on the page, I can see how it may have sapped the film version's scene of its weight by having Richard Dreyfuss talking about old fart smells in the narration track.

yeah, there's a lot of stuff he can write as words that in context of the other words used can either be glossed over or doesn't have the same effect as hearing the words uttered allowed and might cause unintended effects (like, laughter) when heard vocalized.

The Body (AKA "Stand by Me") was another decent adaptation, but I still did not feel the same way after watching the movie that I did when reading the story. The last pages of the story where he's reminiscing about Chris are just so bittersweet and painful. It's a similar emotion to what IT is tapping into -- the loss that comes with the passage of time and the transition from childhood to adulthood. You can't refuse it, and you gain some power and positive impact from the transition, but you lose the magic of childhood and everything that goes with it.

His best stuff isn't really about the horror elements, it's the human elements. It's why "Pet Sematary" is so awful for parents to read, or why I love "The Tommyknockers" so much even if from a horror perspective it didn't make much splash (it's about this enduring friendship between two messed-up people -- Bobbi and Gard), or the whole centerpiece of "Firestarter" which is really about Andy and Charley being on the run with the loss of the mother resonating in their past... Andy trying to be a good dad, Charley trying to be strong and figure out who and what she is. Human drama set with some supernatural influence. It's why so many of his adaptations fail, they focus on the surface/horror elements and ignore the humanity and/or they also try literal translations of things that don't work well audibly and/or on screen.

 

[Lark]

When I read "The Body" as a kid, I seem to remember him writing of the dead body smelling like "old farts" or something to that effect. While that worked on the page, I can see how it may have sapped the film version's scene of its weight by having Richard Dreyfuss talking about old fart smells in the narration track.

The boy wasnt sleeping, the boy was... smelling like farts.

 

[Polaris]

I saw the second movie on Friday, and enjoyed it quite a bit more than the first one. In this film, they gave the characters quite a bit more depth, I thought. They also did a much better job of making Pennywise scary and disturbing rather than merely monstrous. And adult Ben was absolute eye candy.

 

[Totenkindly]

I saw the second movie on Friday, and enjoyed it quite a bit more than the first one. In this film, they gave the characters quite a bit more depth, I thought. They also did a much better job of making Pennywise scary and disturbing rather than merely monstrous. And adult Ben was absolute eye candy.

I know, srsly! I looked up the actor in IMDB afterwards to find out more about him. Looks like he was in a bunch of Aussie TV dramas. He was pretty gorgeous on the eyes AND played a pretty decent adult Ben.

I felt like they tried to give what depth they could, and I felt like the "fear" thing was better managed in Chapter Two. The end of Chapter One, it felt like "all the kids decided to just attack him, so Pennywise left." here, it was a lot more palatable how terrifying he actually could be and how difficult it is to "not believe" in what you're experiencing so that something can lose power.

 

[Totenkindly]

Oh Jaeden Lieberher (young Bill) has apparently changed his name professionally to his mother's maiden name and now goes by Jaeden Martell. As a fan of Oberyn, I can't complain. (I think the first film I saw Jaeden in was Midnight Special, which I have a soft spot for despite an ending that doesn't quite work. The character work is pretty amazing, though, with Kirsten Dunst, Michael Shannon, and Joel Edgerton, and Jaeden is good.)

There are also a few notable cameos in the film.

Andrew Muschetti, the director -- he's in the drugstore.
Peter Bogdanovich, the famous director -- he plays the director in the movie Bill is writing for
Stephen King -- owner of the pawn shop... and it's one of King's better cameos I've seen, because he's honestly a terrible actor

 

[The Cat]

Oh Jaeden Lieberher (young Bill) has apparently changed his name professionally to his mother's maiden name and now goes by Jaeden Martell. As a fan of Oberyn, I can't complain. (I think the first film I saw Jaeden in was Midnight Special, which I have a soft spot for despite an ending that doesn't quite work. The character work is pretty amazing, though, with Kirsten Dunst, Michael Shannon, and Joel Edgerton, and Jaeden is good.)

There are also a few notable cameos in the film.

Andrew Muschetti, the director -- he's in the drugstore.
Peter Bogdanovich, the famous director -- he plays the director in the movie Bill is writing for
Stephen King -- owner of the pawn shop... and it's one of King's better cameos I've seen, because he's honestly a terrible actor

I remember Steven King in that little short based on the Color out of Space...

 

[Totenkindly]

I remember Steven King in that little short based on the Color out of Space...

Is that based on the HP Lovecraft story he based Tommyknockers on?


King said his Tommyknockers is a bad book. That hurts... I actually liked it. Meh. I just don't read much of his current stuff, it feels repetitive or just dumb. (Cell? Really? EDIT: I guess Cell is no longer current either. I lost track of his work, after having read like the first 25-30 books the guy wrote.)


EDIT: OH those bastards. It is NOT worse than Rose Madder or Cell or a host of other crap he put out. can you believe someone bought the movies rights to make The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon? FFS.
Every Single Stephen King Book, Ranked from Worst to Best — Barnes & Noble Reads

Note that top ten are from the first half of his career and maybe mostly before 1990-1995 (well portions of the dark tower spilled into the 2000's, but I think his first four books were the best, along with Mordred in the last book)? 11/22/63 is the notable exception in there, but I read that; it actually was a pretty sweet book. Not his best, but it captured the stuff that makes his work lovely, and again dealing with the bittersweetness of the passage of time.


EDIT 2: Okay, I actually read 41 of the books on that 58 book list (the eight dark tower books were rolled into one entry).

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Pennywise was not remotely menacing. I appreciate the direction the actor took, but the CGI effects really detracted from the performance, for me. Also, the voice reminded me too much of Hoggle from Labyrinth. Just didn't do it for me.

Tim Curry did it better.

 

[The Cat]

Tim Curry did it better.

Tim Curry does everything better.

 

[Polaris]

He was pretty gorgeous on the eyes AND played a pretty decent adult Ben.

Agreed on both points. In general, I thought they did a great job choosing adult versions of the kids from the first movie. Although, I must say that adult Beverly seemed like the polar opposite, in a lot of ways, of young Beverly. People can change immensely with time--I know this by looking at myself--but I don't think they made a very convincing case for the alteration to her personality. Not that it affected my enjoyment of the movie. I'm not very left-brained about that sort of thing; I'm quick to forgive inconsistencies in a story, provided they don't hurt the overall integrity of the plot.

I felt like they tried to give what depth they could, and I felt like the "fear" thing was better managed in Chapter Two. The end of Chapter One, it felt like "all the kids decided to just attack him, so Pennywise left." here, it was a lot more palatable how terrifying he actually could be and how difficult it is to "not believe" in what you're experiencing so that something can lose power.

Yeah, they went for a much more psychological angle with the confrontation in this movie. I found it much more compelling than them ganging up on Pennywise with physical weapons and beating him up.

 

[The Cat]

One of the things I find I consistently like about King, he writes Faeries so well. Leland Gaunt, Pennywise, In my own imagination I cant help but think of them as the true fae. Powerful otherworldly beings, solipsistic and yet, so charismatic, and magical as all get out, but subtlely so. I can see Linoge from Storm of the Century as an exiled Fae, who because he cant return to Arcadia; or Leng or the Dreamlands, knowing King's penchant for Cthulhu Mythos; he's fading. Not as quickly as a mortal would age, but quickly enough we seem him not able to take any form beyond an aged man at the end, but he's already begun transforming fairy saddle boy into a changeling. One day that kid will return to Faerie and Claim Linoges old title and bla bla bla rambles. But yeah, I really enjoy how king uses faeries.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Maybe it was the Long Island Iced Tea talking (yay Illinois... Gifford Pinochot, you did some good things, but your influence on PA liquor laws was pretty bad), but I liked part 2 10 times better than part 1. It hit me in the feels, and the horror and comedy was also better done, I think. Of course the cast was pretty good...

I also thought the theme about childhood memories and adulthood was kind of interesting. As well as the bit about how the dark has to be used to kill to light, as an inversion of the way it usually goes.

Lots of artistic touches I appreciate, too.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yeah, that bit about darkness needed to deal with the deadlights was a nice spin.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Yeah, that bit about darkness needed to deal with the deadlights was a nice spin.

Is that from the book?

 

[Totenkindly]

Is that from the book?

I dont remember it but I haven't read through the entire book for years.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I dont remember it but I haven't read through the entire book for years.

Oh. It's kind of a doorstopper, isn't it?

 

[anticlimatic]

Saw it tonight. Love the entire cast, so I almost feel like I got my money's worth, but overall it felt like it could have been far more enjoyable for me if it had gone a completely different direction from the bottom up. Felt scared twice for .01 seconds during a couple jump-scare scenes, and that was the extent of my emotional involvement. Too many characters to give any of them any real depth. Entire thing felt discombobulated and broken up/reassembled- editing maybe- like it was made by a committee, The Committee Of Generic Hollywood Horror Cliches. Featuring such classic favorites as Flickering Light-bulb, Child Laugh Track, Contorted Dead Body That Moves, Hyper-Jerky Movements, and many many others- all buffed out with balanced CGI lighting and a special effects cartoon overlay for at least half the movie.

What I enjoyed the most about the book, and to a lesser extent even the made for TV movie (when I was 10), it was the marriage of a small town coming of age story with existential dread. I wish the movies gave me even half of the creeps the book did, and didn't feel so 'hollywood fake.'

I could nit-pick all day, but one thing that really let me down was the scale of the sewers and the caves beneath it. I remember them getting lost for days down there, not sprinting out in 5 seconds. And while we are talking about sewer problems, the set pieces for down there I thought were awful and made no sense. A giant circular room with a skylight? A trap door to another giant circular room with a skylight? Huh? Where the hell are we? Have the creators ever seen a sewer or cave?

I think IT is a Cthulu mythos story when you think about it.

More or less, yeah.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

[MENTION=7]Totenkindly[/MENTION] [MENTION=5159]Lexicon[/MENTION], I know you both have read a lot of the King novels, so I'm hoping you remember enough to answer an inquiry I have. I was looking on Wikipedia and it says that It is referred to as Bob Gray a couple of times. Does this mean that Mr. Gray from Dreamcatcher is supposed to be Pennywise? Now, the Dreamcatcher movie is definitely one of the lesser King adaptations, but if I remember right, the characters were from Derry. Perhaps it's meant more to suggest that they're related somehow?

 

[Hellena Handbasket]

Tim Curry does everything better.

QFT

 

[Totenkindly]

Okay. Since it had been decades since I'd see the TV miniseries, I figured I'd give it another chance and then later watch the films and see how those measure up.

The miniseries is around 3 hours.
The films total about 5 hours.


Let's go!

---- TV MINISERIES

I'll be as fair as I can, also as someone who read the book in 1986 while I was at college. (I think it took me maybe a week to get through 1000+ pages -- needless to say, I was engrossed and I should have been studying or something....) But it's been some years since I last read the book. That being said.

HOUR #1

Pennywise: There's no one quite like Tim Curry. He's appeared 4-5 times in the first hour and each time is creepy and hilarious. He knew what the assignment was, and I think no one can look at that version of a clown anymore without freaking out.

Casting, Casting, Casting: Here, I realize is where some of my problems are. Some casting matches what I experienced in the books, others is shit.

Losers - Kids

• Good casting: Richie (Seth freaking Green, lol), Eddie (looks/acts perfect),
• Adequate casting: Beverly (just kinda average), Ben (he's the wrong kind of fat/personality-- the kind who will grow up to the easy-going blocker on the high school football team, they needed a pudgier and smaller overweight kid who is also more geeky/sensitive -- I couldn't believe the bullies would fixate on this version of Ben, as he was too physically intimidating, and they are looking for victims), Stan (hasn't done much yet),

Losers - Adults

• Good casting: Eddie (aside from the blonde locks), but he definitely emotes correctly, I can believe he's the smallest and weakest physically of the bunch
• Adequate casting: Ben (John Ritter), I'm not yet convinced he is a good Ben + physical description and manner is nothing like the book; Bill (Richard Thomas), again not really sure on him, and he's got all his hair! Those are big departures visually; Richie (Harry Anderson) is adequate to maybe good although I'm still not sure on Anderson's natural softness properly emoting Richie's fixation on being naturally offensive; Stanly hasn't yet shown up as an adult.
• Bad casting: Beverly (Annette O' Toole), she's just terrible and doesn't really stand out at all, yes, true viewers, this was the state of TV actresses in the 80's where someone like Annette O' Toole could get plumb TV roles, she's really a stock actress for pseudo-soap operas. I just don't see any of Bevvie's strength in her, just the weak/mousy parts.

Others

• Adequate casting: The bullies (including Bowers); Bev's dad (although he's kind of a caricature); Audra (English actress, checkbox filled);
• Bad casting: Bev's "partner" Tom, he's a different character in the book, this seems like the more femme pretty boy jock we're familiar with from teen 80's romps with his skinnier build. Tom should have been a little more dull-witted, less pretty, more believably resorting to beating her to keep in her place; Eddie's mom (not the right type of caricature)

Music: I about keeled over when I saw this won the Emmy that year for TV music composition. Like WTF. I mostly HATE the music, it's either thin, or melodramatic, or conventional. However, maybe 20% of the time, there was an unexpected musical response that I thought was kinda cool. (I think once there was an unexpected electric guitar, for example. Jarring, at the right moment.)

Directing: I still haven't decided how I feel about framing. Some of it is okay; other times the blocking is really cheesy (like when Bill's parents rush into the room as he's looking at George's photo album). Everything is very 50's in those moments, but of course the setting is the 50's. In fact, Georgie's delivery is very "50's kid delivery" as well. Emotionally, I hate the directing. The first hour is very melodramatic, there is no nuance, it's all either quiet/common language or screaming at the camera; and some of this is the fault of the screenplay, but a better director could have given his cast more nuance direction. Basically, the best scenes so far have been the ones with Curry in them, overall, and I think the director has more experience in that genre; but he can't direct real emotional content worth shit. My view is that based on which scenes are better, ANYTHING good emotionally in the first hour is a result of cast talent, not directing.

Storytelling: This is mostly a script thing, and it's actually a nice blend of 50's/80's and flashbacks. It's really too bad about the time constraints because it's causing the intro's to the adult versions of the characters to be truncated emotionally. But it's actually a nice balance so far. I also think it was a good thing to do Mike calling each one of them in turn and watching them each react to his call. This is the book approach and it's effective in the show because you wonder what would scare them THAT much.

... surprisingly, even after those criticisms, so far the miniseries has actually been better than my memory. So there is that.



EDIT: Random gripe. Ben (Ritter) -- "you bet your fern"??? Wtf is that? The line is "you bet your fur." (which is like saying "You bet your life / you bet your hiney / etc). YOU BET YOUR FERN IS NOT THE LINE. BUT IT IS SAID MULTIPLE TIMES AND EVEN IN THE SUBTITLES. "You bet your fern" makes no fucking sense whatsoever, even when you are just making up things for "You bet your [thing]". Like, that is just another leap beyond dumb, for nouns to pick.