So this is still happening. Production started today, and they're going to go ahead with the two-movie idea.
>comingsoon.net
I can't help but feel this is a doomed exercise. IT is one of those King books that really can't be filmed, in part because so much of it is in the heads of the characters.
Other urls found in this thread:
variety.com
twitter.com
Whatever. Other than Tim Curry's performance, the previous movie has terrible acting and is outdated almost completely.
I'm fine with this.
Fukunaga insisted it had o be R-rated, they demanded PG-13, he walked out.
Will they include the little kid orgy this time?
...
The original miniseries is terrible, the book is one of the better ones King has written, despite its flaws.
>PG-13
dead on arrival.
Probably not. I mean, I get why that scene is in the book. Sex is the dividing line between adulthood and childhood, "It" is a child's way of referring to sex, with the monster personifying the fear of growing up and how harsh that transition can be... so on one level it makes sense to have sex be the final breaking point for the kid characters, especially positive, life-affirming sex... on the other hand, the reality of the scene is its a bunch of preteens gangbanging in a dirty sewer.
I don't think there's any real way to preserve the message King had with that scene while putting it on screen. The blunt physicality of what you're seeing will override all subtext. At best you could just imply or refer to the scene happening, without showing the act itself.
when did this happen
only in the book, right?
/thread
Well, yeah.
variety.com
>For a cover story this week on “Beasts of No Nation,” Cary Fukunaga explained to Variety why he bailed this summer on New Line’s horror movie remake of Stephen King’s “It.” Fukunaga had already written a script with Chase Palmer on the project, which he first boarded in 2012 (it started at Warner Bros. before it was moved to New Line). The studio is now looking to hire a new director with a fresh script.
>Fukunaga had planned on making “It” into two films. Although early reports indicated that the director left over budgetary concerns, Fukunaga maintained that wasn’t the case. Both sides had agreed on making the two films for $32 million, according to the director. But Fukunaga said he had bigger disagreements with New Line over the direction of the story. A rep from New Line didn’t respond to a request for a comment. Here’s Fukunaga’s explanation:
>Fukunaga: “I was trying to make an unconventional horror film. It didn’t fit into the algorithm of what they knew they could spend and make money back on based on not offending their standard genre audience. Our budget was perfectly fine. We were always hovering at the $32 million mark, which was their budget. It was the creative that we were really battling. It was two movies. They didn’t care about that. In the first movie, what I was trying to do was an elevated horror film with actual characters. They didn’t want any characters. They wanted archetypes and scares. I wrote the script. They wanted me to make a much more inoffensive, conventional script. But I don’t think you can do proper Stephen King and make it inoffensive.
>“The main difference was making Pennywise more than just the clown. After 30 years of villains that could read the emotional minds of characters and scare them, trying to find really sadistic and intelligent ways he scares children, and also the children had real lives prior to being scared. And all that character work takes time. It’s a slow build, but it’s worth it, especially by the second film. But definitely even in the first film, it pays off.
>“It was being rejected. Every little thing was being rejected and asked for changes. Our conversations weren’t dramatic. It was just quietly acrimonious. We didn’t want to make the same movie. We’d already spent millions on pre-production. I certainly did not want to make a movie where I was being micro-managed all the way through production, so I couldn’t be free to actually make something good for them. I never desire to screw something up. I desire to make something as good as possible.
>“We invested years and so much anecdotal storytelling in it. Chase and I both put our childhood in that story. So our biggest fear was they were going to take our script and bastardize it. So I’m actually thankful that they are going to rewrite the script. I wouldn’t want them to stealing our childhood memories and using that. I mean, I’m not sure if the fans would have liked what I would had done. I was honoring King’s spirit of it, but I needed to update it. King saw an earlier draft and liked it.””
Have they actually said it's going to be PG 13? Fukanaga's problems seem to have been more with executive meddling more than anything else. He doesn't mention the rating.
Fuck Hollywood seriously. And fuck Blumhouse for dumbing down horror movies as a whole for years now.
At least they changed the actor playing Pennywise. The guy Fungynada had cast was better suited for the bully character, Henry.
Last i heard it's still rated R.
This is the new Losers Club.
Weird they didn't update any of them. One girl, one black, one gay just like the miniseries.
Who is playing Pennywise anyway?
so are they going a head with chancing the time periods?
If its not in the 50s then im not watching it. Being PG 13 is already a bad sign
the fat kid makes me smile
Let me guess, from left to right it's: Stanley, Bill, Mike, Ben, Eddie, Richie, and Bev.
Bill Skarsgard
Like most of King's black characters there are extremely specific and esoteric moments involving their race that are defining for the character. Compromising this would be much more of an insult to the validity of black characters than it would be a push for social "progress". It's a shame people can't grasp this.