So we're officially excited about this again, right?

So we're officially excited about this again, right?

driderkino get hype

Nah. Looks dumb.

I'm surprised they somehow managed to make IT look not scary.

Nah. Looks fine.

It's going to be F I N N K I N O

The cast is unironically racist as shit.

>Giant Spider

>posts a picture of a human

drider

>What was that?

Nice try but S. King is deaf in his right ear

>Giant Drider

Dude, i have a band with you lmao

>we

This film is going to be pederast's dream just like Stranger Things isn't it?

nah

QT

beep beep

I've been away from the computer all day. Any new Finnkinos?

No. Trying too hard. It's all wrong.

nah

i am :^)

naw

It stars the greatest actor of his generation, Finn Wolfhard. Of course we're excited.

hopefully that shit is his scary mode. if its his "i got some candy for ya kids" mode, than its all wrong. tim curry was fantastic already, no need to go shit tier now on the design.

>The face of the clown in the stormdrain was white, there were funny tufts of red hair on either side of his bald head, there was a big clown-smile painted over his mouth. If George would have been inhabiting a later year, he would have surely thought of Ronald McDonald before Bozo or Clarabell.

>The clown, Hagarty said, looked like a cross between Ronald McDonald & that old TV clown, Bozo-or so he thought at 1st. It was the wild tufts of orange hair that brought such comparisons to mind. But later consideration had caused him to think the clown really looked like neither. The smile painted over the white pancake was red, not orange, & the eyes were a weird shiny silver. Contact lenses, perhaps... but a part of him thought then & continued to think that maybe that
silver had been the real color of those eyes. He wore a baggy suit with big orange-pompom buttons; on his hands were cartoon gloves.

>He was wearing a baggy silk suit with great big orange buttons. A bright tie, electric-blue, flopped down his front, and on his hands were big white gloves, like the kind Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck always wore.

>The figure was dressed in what appeared to be a white-silver clown suit. It rippled around him in the polar wind. There were oversized orange shoes on his feet. They matched the pompom buttons which ran down the front of his suit.

Yes. Even if this is the aggro version of Pennywise it looks like shit compared to a fucking made for TV adaptation.

It will only be good if that 12 year old whores herself out

That looks like something you'd see on a shirt at hot topic.

yeah its like they are trying too hard to make it look spoopy and have failed to grasp that the whole deal with pennywise was that there was something off about him, there is something sinister behind the smile.

looks gay

It's been said repeatedly in these threads, but yes. That's it exactly. This is unnerving. OP's image looks like some shitty Juggalo reject.

Can someone explain the whole drider controversy thing? I havent read King in like 10 years so I dont clearly remember what the fuss is about

There is no controversy. Some aspie decided that the giant spider was humanoid and started spamming IT threads. It's not, he's retarded, move along.

nah

What exactly is a drider?

According to Froggo, it isn't what he looks like in any of the scenes they've shot so far. I would assume this is his spoopy side.

Dungeons and Dragons bullshit

not since fukunaga left.

It was shit all around except for the instances of Tim Curry performing directly for the audience.

This remake hinges on either telling the story better than the movie did, or having an actor that can match Tim and understands why his scenes were so memorable.

i guess thats good news, but still disappointing design, tim curry pennywise spoopy mode was pretty great for a mini tv series adaptation.

finn said in a periscope that the promo image looks nothing like how he does on set

Then they're doing a real bang up job at promoting it. I've already lost what little interest I had.

nothing really. there isn't a drider in any of kings books. lots of were-creatures though and a were-spider is an especially prominent one.

and i don't even think it is a were-spider. just something weird from todash-space.

>Studio pushes the bulk of the story to the 1980s
>Hires the lead actor from Stranger Things
>Uses his face for promotional material
mfw they steal the D&D monster element from ST and a Giant Drider unironically shows up in the third act.

The TV adaption fucking sucked. Wasn't faithful to the books, Pennywise wasn't scary, none of it was scary. All you dumb faggots longing for a past that blew huge cock are just outing yourselves as the giant pleebs you really are

Finn is legitimately doing a better job promoting this movie than the people they hired to promote this movie.

Hell no, it pretty much ruins the original since it's not made to lure children, he already looks evil from the start.

i think its shit that theyre making the kids timeline and aldults timeline into separate movies. The whole cool thing about IT is that they are parallel storylines that play out at the same time in the book so you arent spoiled as to what will happen

A child having more promotional sense than Hollywood studios? I haven't been following any of the actors, but I believe it.

also Tim Curry is scary.

>Thinks a clown that reeks of rotting garbage and decaying flesh peeking out from a storm grate is alluring to children
Nah. Looks fine.

face down eyes up thats the way we like to fuck

But you ARE spoiled, you retard. If they did it like the books you would know IT is defeated in the 50s instead of having it play out. Do you understand what you're trying to critique?

>Wasn't faithful to the books
Neither was The Shining yet it's better than King's own made-for-tv adaptation.

no

It's supposed to, did you not read the book or watch the tv miniseries?

He also doesn't look either creepy or interesting.

They remember they stopped it, but they can't remember how and the fact that it's back means that they didn't really defeat it.

I'm withholding judgement until we get a trailer, which we probably won't get for a few more months yet.

Great, so if it's done parallel then you already know It's defeated in the 50s storyline. If they do two separate films, nothing is spoiled. Get it?

Well Jesus Christ every book adaptation is spoiled to those who read the book, but most people in the world havent read IT

Hopefully they go in a complete different direction or else the second movie will be pointless

Well, you can't do anything about that. If you've read the book then you know what's going to happen. For people who haven't it's better to do two separate films.

Yes to both. Georgie approaches him because he has his boat. Not because he looks appealing. In the book he is literally petrified when he first sees him because he is reminded of the basement odor that scared him earlier in the chapter. And Pennywise typically shows up when bad shit is going down.

That's like saying that it's spoilers for us to know that Isildur didn't throw the ring in the fire before the flashback scene where Elrond confronts him on it.

It's not a fucking spoiler if you don't know what the fuck happened.

I know, I just think one of the things that makes IT interesting is the alternating storylines, where events are transpiring in the 80s as the characters remember the corresponding events in the 50s

Without that IT loses one of its main charms

No gangbang no watch.

Yeah, splitting it into two movies makes sense. You could never tell this story as one movie with both plotlines, it would be like ten hours long. Nor could you run the plots concurrently and still split into two movies: you'd be breaking in the middle of each plotline, leaving your first movie with no climax and your second movie with no beginning,

That said, they're going to have a lot of headaches making these two movies work. The book is structured with overlapping plots in mind. Neither plot, as written, would really hold up as a story unto itself. They'll have to restructure them a bit for these movies and it's gonna probably result in some pacing issues.

You're LESS spoiled if you know nothing. If you do a movie where it switches between timelines than you already know the kids stopped It once. If you do two separate films you know less than you would with one. Therefore it's less of a spoiler to do two. How are you not grasping this?

if they don't make a reference to the turtle I will rage

Damned if you do, damned if you dont. This story isnt meant for film. Meanwhile we will never get a proper "The Stand" film

>proper "The STand film
my life for you, bumpity bump

Eh, IT is better than The Stand anyway.

Not that guy, but by having two separate movies, the second will be a big disappointment when its basically the same thing but with grown ups

Why would anyone watch the second movie?
"oh the kids beat the clown and had an orgy, I can't wait to see what happens next"
The story would be over for people at that point.

Wrong. The smell georgie first smells is an invite carnival smell, like cotton candy and roasted peanuts. Pennywises eyes also change colors midconversation to the colors of Mr. Denboroughs eyes.
He is first timid because "why would a clown be in the sewer?"
Pennywise does everything right to get Georgie to put his guard down and only towards the end of their conversation and Georgies life, does the smell of decay and rot seep back in.

As a book yes, but the Stand would make a better movie than IT

The Stand miniseries wasnt that bad, minus a low effects budget and being being made for tv

They'll do a scene setting up the second, something that shows It isn't dead. Maybe the final scenes will be Mike calling all the kids as adults telling them to come back to Derry. Who knows? They can do a lot of things

The ending especially. The endings in both timeline are almost identical, down to certain plot beats being copied as weird "echoes" of each other through time. One just ends prematurely. That's something they're probably going to have to adjust for the movies, so the end of the second doesn't feel like a retread of the end of the first to audiences new to the story.

They can, but thats horror movie cliche shit and detracts from the story.

I agree with you, and I think this argument is especially ridiculous considering King has a habit of purposefully telling the reader what is going to happen before it happens. He literally tells the reader George Denbrough is going to be murdered before he even leaves the house.

>mfw rumors of mcconaughey playing randall flagg morphed into him playing the man in blak version in the dark tower shitshow

>Wasn't faithful to the books

Well it's not like you can show a child gang bang on national TV anyway unless you lived in Thailand.

Why not both?

it had its ok parts, but a lot of it was pretty bad. The guy that played Harold was bad. The guy that played Flagg didnt do it right.

Because the Dark Tower series gets absolutely ridiculous. In a book is one thing, but when they try to put all that ridiculousness on a screen where you can actually see it with your eyes, it will look absolutely insane. The stand could be a legitmately interesting and believable movie or movie series if they rewrote the ending

Would it? The Stand is just as sprawling as IT, with a huge cast and two general plot threads that are sort of unconnected from each other. I think it would be almost as much of an adaptation nightmare as IT is. It's only saving grace is it has a more conventional structure.

Now that I think of it, The Stand would make a great TV miniseries if done by HBO or something rather than ABC

Both it and IT would probably be better off in that medium.

Most of the cast was good though, minus maybe Fran. I think the intensity of the superflu spreading was handled as well as it could be and after everybody was gone it felt so barren and creepy. After they settle in Colorado and Vegas is when things nosedive, both in book and show.
The Abigail/Flagg dreams from the show still give me goosebumps

fuck Maine

Das right Maine

Do you think there will be a drider gangbang?

ayuh

BTW why is yalls governor so god damn based

The biggest problem with The Stand for me is the sci-fi apocalypse vs magical good and evil story. King's best stories are either exclusively sci-fi, exclusively supernatural, or go for a Lovecraftian middle ground where it's a bit of both. The Stand, on the other hand, opens with a sci-fi premise: a genetically engineered disease destroys civilization. Then it introduces, out of the blue, magic and visions and supernatural entities. The first reference to magic isn't until over halfway in, when Flagg does his levitating act on a lonely desert road. It'd be different if the story had the superflu be supernatural in origin, or if it implied Flagg had used his supernatural powers to cause the outbreak. Instead you just have these two tonally dissonant premises clashing against each other.

They kicked out Cary Fukunaga because he wanted to make it good. Will not be good.

I could have sworn Flagg testing out his powers happens relatively early on in the book

Anyone know what it will be rated and when it's out? Will it be a cinema release?

They already did the chronological thng with the 90s version though.
They would just be doing the same shit and it wouldn't be any closer to the book.

Nope. It's not until the disaster is well underway, and it's written no long after you've seen stuff written from the perspective of the diseased, where they're clearly out of their heads and experiencing a surreal version of the world, and it's not initially clear if what's happening is more of that or not.