Anyone looking forward to seeing the new IT movie next week?

Anyone looking forward to seeing the new IT movie next week?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=RVB6mKTmi3Q
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

fuck yes i am
Bought the book to read first

looking forward to the gangbang

I've listened to the audiobook a couple of times. From the trailers etc. looks like it's gonna be good

no way is beverley the same age as the others

The faggot from stranger things is in it too

The original miniseries was so good, why would I want to see this and ruin it.

Whatever happened to making new movies, why make the same movie already made, with the same plot, and just changing the actors? Would you take a MJ song and say, you know what would be great, if we got some less talented guy to sing the same song?

Have you read the book? As much as I love the miniseries there was so much cool stuff missed out because it was made for TV

Animation got much better though and IT is a book/movie which MUCH room for that. The old version from approximately 1800 looks like shit.

Bevvies got a decent pair of titties in this pic

Not yet. I might someday. But watching this movie seems like going in the opposite direction.

you probably think great graphics makes games more fun to play

I saw the mini series when I was about 12 and I loved it.

But read the book a few years ago and it makes you realise how good it could've been.

Hopefully this movie does it justice

Nope, read the book saw the original.
If a director producer is too stupid too come up with original material? Fuck him let him go bankrupt.There are thousands of best selling authors out there who should have their books made in to films.

You really don't know how the film industry works don't you?
What a sad peasant.

Not necessarily, but if core points cannot be brought across because the lack of technology then you may call me a graphics whore. I mean pennywise is a shape shifter, he turns up as gigant eyes or as a monster or whatever - this is nothing you can make up for with good acting.

But special effects can look as good if not better when using practical effects and not just CG shit.
It's not just good acting, you are a fucking moron

I know exactly how it works.Which is why I do not spend money on remakes. And I bad mouth them to others as if I have seen them so others will go see something else.

How may times do we have to remake "the thing"? Mercedes Lackey has plenty of books that could be made screen plays!

I'm surprised Sup Forums isn't all over this, I read in a review that they were disgusted that they sexualised Bev in this movie

I dunno
Tim Curry was so good, i don't want to ruin the allure

>Implying you can make a change on a movie that will probably make double what it cost to make

>Mercedes Lackey
Literally who?

Did they even read the book? The shit that girl did... ohhh mama

youtube.com/watch?v=RVB6mKTmi3Q
Look at this scene for instance. This is nowhere even close to scary, and it's SUPPOSED to be scary. Please tell me again how practical effects are not inferior to animation.

>an orgy of underage childern discovering sexual pleasure one with another after beating the monster

Totally going to happen!

Those last 50 pages hmm hmm.

hope she get blacked
>i'm not a jew

Who spends money to watch movies anymore? Just stream that shit when it comes out. Never know, you might actually like it.

Why slate something before you see it

Well, honestly, she's sexualized in the books. And those kids are in early middle school. She's the only girl that most of them know that's actually nice to them. She's flirty with several of the boys in the crew....

... and in the books, when it's all said and done, the boys run train on her. True story.

To really capture the feel of middle school if you got one or two girls in an all male crew she/they WILL serve as the sexual interest of most of the crew. That's just how it is.

To remove that dynamic is to really remove a lot of the group's chemistry and change the story considerably. Though I'm sure the gangbang will be understandably cut..... that was pretty shocking even in the more lax era that the book was released.

There's gonna be an IT movie!?!

I bet you like jumpscares as well
Jesus can anyone be more of a pleb?

What a bunch of nerds you are. Information Technology is such a boring topic. Pathetic.

>Literally who?
Illiterate oaf...

The boys all have a go on her in the book?

Might give this a read...

Because it is not original.

Why don't you just make a copy of a dollar bill??

CGI leads to a lot of shit. The scale models and visual effects in the original Star Wars looked a lot better and realistic than the CGI used in the later films. Even if certain things could not be portrayed at all if not for CGI.
Hell, even the effects in the original Ghostbusters over 30 years ago were more appropriate than the gee-whiz effects in the new Ghostbusters which did not help sell the story and were fake af in their own way. I am afraid with all the "new technology" effects they are going to ruin the film. It won't be scary at all if it seems like people are running from computer fx, not to mention it's almost impossible to get effective acting if actors are reacting to things in front of a blue screen, rather than something in their presence.
For that matter, good acting and script will make up for all but the very worst special effects. It does not work going the other way, I don't care how much $$ those Transformers movies make.

Have you ever seen a movie based on something?
Every director (if good) gives it's own twist to the original idea.

So let me clarify: You think the above posted scene is scary and does not need any improvement - right?

Same

They're leaving that part out.

In the very end, after they've slain it. Yes. They have a go on her.

It's a pretty good book.... but honestly, the kids portion of the story is way better than the adult part which just sort of feels phoned in. I'd give the book a solid 8/10. It could have been 10/10 if it was edited better, it's like 2000 pages if I remember right.

If they clipped it down to half that length, perhaps just using the adult portion to sort of bookend it (adults telling the story of what happened), it could have been far better.

But as Stephen King books go, it's probably one of his absolute best, IF not THE best.

It really brings back the days of youthful adventure, days that most of Sup Forums probably sadly missed out on.

>"Illiterate oaf"
>tips fedora
>"heh... I bet he did't even read the 120 pages of the original IT script"
>"nothin personel, oaf"

>They're leaving that part out.
Who would have known...

Thought the same thing and got severely disappointed by this thread.

literal gang bang. shit to make ya diamonds

Did you really read my reply and think that?
wew

Same reason I didn't see the remake of Judge Dredd or (!) Total Recall.
y u do dis

Holy shit you are a fucking pleb as well! the remake of Judge Dredd is fucking god tier. The original is flawed as fuck and you should be purged if you think it's any good.

Nope I don't need to see a very Brady Christmas remake to know it is shit.

As I said there have been 2 remakes of the thing. None are better then the original B&W..

They remade True Grit exact same script no way it was better with Jeff Bridges then John Wayne

Easy money. It's the same reason why they make "prequels" all the time now.

Because going to the movies is getting out and doing something, and a pleasant experience in it's own right.
Never leaving your domicile for any reason is damn depressing, even if you can technically get everything you could ever need right to your house thanks to technology.

So because of 1 movie that was a bad remake, all the remakes are bad?
Let me guess, feminist?

>Let me guess, feminist?

What would that have to do with anything? Not him, just curious how you came to this conclusion.

They often like to generalize

You really are quite unread if you don't recognize the name. It's like not knowing who Stephen King or Robert Heinlein or Shakespeare are.

>pleasant experience

ok m8

I'll watch a bootleg first. If it's really excellent I may pay to go and see it in theatres after.

It's a very good book that really *deserves* a good adaptation. Though the original mini-series back in the 90s was honestly better than most King adaptations (which doesn't say a lot), it still wasn't very good. Tim Curry slayed as It, and there were a few legit scary scenes, but for the most part it was shit, maybe fun shit, but shit nonetheless.

I hope they do well with it, but I'm not holding my breath. King's cinematic adaptations do not have a good track record with literally only 3 that stand out as actually being good (Green Mile, Shawshank Redemption, The Shining).

trailers always look good, only for the movie to turn out shit afterwards. like anabelle (both parts). the only thing that was remotly good in last years in horror genre was 1st half of conjuring.

wait, are you implying people don't like different things

it actually looks like its gonna be pretty good

>The Shining
I literally fell asleep while watching it.
Green mile was gud though.

Are you kidding?

I have listed off far more than one in this very thread.

Remakes are crap.

There is one exception.

But I will never share it.All remakes should lose money and the directors and producers should be tarred and feathered.

There are thousands of books out there screaming out to be made in to a film.

Any producer would be served well by going to a library and asking any random kid. Hey whatchya reading? I named Mercedes Lackey, but there is also Orson Scott Card, Neal Stephenson, Or Ed Greenwood, just stacks and stacks of books waiting to be made films.

To your last question: FUCK NO Just an avid reader seeking NEW CONTENT and not the same old shit done six times. Think we really need a remake of the crow or jungle book?

You're absolutely right, my mistake. I'm sure those people loved that screening of the dark knight

...

you mean the first half of it...lol

>Neal Stephenson
Good luck making a movie out of Cryptonomicon

They're remaking the crow? Duh fuck???

WA HAH!
WA HAH!
WA HAH!

You know who that is in the picture don't you?

That's because the internet has broken your brain. No one can appreciate mood, atmosphere, cinematics or acting anymore. After a few seconds of no explosions or rapid camera movements, got to whip out the phone and get on fb or do some candy crush
There isn't enough silence in people's lives to develop any kind of depth of thinking or creativity these days

King DESPISED the way they did The Shining. Hated it badly enough that he has repeated verbatim the same reviw of it every time he's been asked about it. TBF, Kubric did a shit job of it, Diane Johnson (who wrote the screenplay did a terrible job too. The ONLY decent work on the show at all are Nicholson, Duval and Crothers, who give splendid performances given the writing and dorecting they're stuck with.

The Crow is one of those movies that's the literal embodiment of the 90s (particularly 90s goth culture). Much like Wayne's World or Bill and Ted it perfectly represents the era that it was made.

To take any of those movies that perfectly encapsulate an era and remake them would only mean mutilating them.

I was thinking snow crash. Crypt would be too much like Dune it would need a glossary.

Sad innit?

You are right, and this was the only remake I liked, but I still told friends it was shit.I will never market or help schill a remake.

Out of curiosity - How does the audiobook version handle the kid's gangbanging the girl?

Anyone who says this movie is going to be good is a piece of shit. This movie is going to be nothing but jump scars.

Oh, now I get what you meant

Trim it down to a "good parts" version and make that. You ever read the original "Princess Bride" book? It's about twice as long as the one they turned into a movie and is stuffed with long genaeologies of the various nobles that turn up for one or two lines of dialogue. It's like reading the Old testament with all the "So-and-so begat so-and-so Jr. who begat..." interspersed with some cool writing.

Cut out 99% of the cryptobabble that only mathemeticians and their ilk will understand, much less enjoy and film the rest of it.

Better idea though, would be to turn Snowcrash or The Diamond Age into a movie.

Well, honestly The Shining was only *loosely* based on his work, as was The Shawshank redemption. And those came out far better than the more faithful adaptations like Needful Things, It, or Langoliers.

King DOES write some good books (though for every good book he's wrote there's about 3 turds), but for some reason the only good adaptations were done very loosely.

I don't know if you know this, but King was so butthurt about how Kubrick did The Shining that he felt obliged to make *his own version* back in the 90s as a television mini series. You know why you never heard about it? Because it sucked ass. It sucked ass bad. Just campy, cheesy, poorly written, poorly acted, with an ultra low budget.

You can't even compare King's cinematic version of the shining to Kubrick, it would be comparing a 1/10 movie (no redeeming traits) to a 9.5/10.

Kubrick did a good job driving that van though

>tfw stephan king posts 80% of all loli threads

>I was thinking snow crash
Maybe. Seems like something that could have been made into a film during the early 90s, not sure if you could do it today, maybe with tweaking the cyber stuff.
Like you couldn't do a remake of Hackers today?

I dunno. The Carpenter version of The Thing was pretty good. The prequel was mediocre, but considering that everyone who saw the 1985 version already knew how it ended...

Sometimes a remake does justice to the work. How many rebooted Batman movies are there? 3? 4? For my money, the one with Heath Ledger as the Joker is the penultimate Batman intro flick.

Most of the time you're right; it's just a cheap way to make a quick buck at best and a severe waste of time and talent at worst.

>There isn't enough silence in people's lives to develop any kind of depth of thinking or creativity these days
Your description doesn't fit to me though. I still find "atmosphere building" scenes [with no contribution to story or lore] boring though. It was the same when i watched scarface. When i watch a movie i want to be entertained and not bored.
On the other hand if you take a look at the lord of the rings: There are a lot of scenes (even more so in the extended cut) that didn't contribute to the story but often showed the landscape, or told small stories of unimportant characters and so on. None of these scenes were composed of having to look at the same position for like a minute with only slight changes of the camera position and nothing happening. If i want that i go hiking, if i pay for a movie i want to see shit happen.

No, remakes suck and ruin everything.
I used to be a spiderman fan when i was a kid, i had comics, costumes, figurines, everything. Then they made a movie, and it was OK. Then they made 30000 more and now i would rape peter parker to death if he were real.

Nah, bro. This is so wrong I don't even no where to begin. Kubrick did it masterfully.

There is no doubt a boring stretch in the middle. A frozen stillness in which nothing happens. The part where Jack Torrance is losing his mind. But it's intended to be that way. It's a brilliant depiction of his isolation, boredom, and disconnection from the world.

The screenplay is great, Kubrick (as always) is a master, the acting is great.

Honestly, King's orignal book is just okay. I read it after seeing the 70s Shining and the movie really lead me to believe it would be better.

But if I was King, I would be saying the same thing. It probably tears an author up inside to have a filmmaker change the story up completely and make it *far* better. It's a situation where the author can NOT be honest with himself and just acknowlege that the way they've changed it made for a far superior story.

With all the PROGAY stuff today?

Mercedes Lackey's Last Herald Mage trilogy would probably make a billion dollars.

Nope. Batman was exactly why my first post to this thread had an image of Robin. THEY ALL SUCKED. Sure they had their moments but I am telling you there is stuff out there that would make a mint. I have been pushing Lackeys stuff for 25 years I would kill to see any of her stuff made in to a film.

Well, the Shining was a great film, and I fell asleep in the 2nd Bored of the Rings movie at the theater. So there's that.

How did americans come across Judge Dredd? It's not your comic. It's not your humor.

And agreed, the second one was pretty good. But I was a little dissapointed as I had just seen "The Raid" (indonesia) before.

I like your droll use of parrot imagery

have you tried reading cryptonomicon again? it's so fucking dated now...beepers.

Of his stuff, I'd like to see Diamond Age. That's his best imho.

Once was enough! I didn't really care for it. Then I read Snow Crash, it was a little better. Neal was recommended to me by a friend for political reasons.

Tbh the Baroque Cycle seems like a really cool concept and I've thought about reading them for years. But after Cryptonomicon and Snow Crash... I'm not so sure

well, you could, but you'd have to make it MUCH more realistic. The basic characters sould remain the same though.

Cyberpunk is not a dead genre, most screenwriters and directors don't understand it well enough to do it justice though. It's like Lovecraft. Either you understand and love exestential horror or you don't and you think it's just really boring and try to jam it full of jumpscares at all the wrong points.

Carpenter's "The Thing" and "In the Mouth of Madness" are some of the rare exceptions in a poorly understood genre.

a well done cyberpunk film is just as rare.

Thanks...
I think?

Obviously you're taste is shit.

I would stab three people to see Lackey's work on the big screen. Same with Heinlein's later works or Vernor Vinge's Titan Trillogy.

Dude, I've been reading Dredd since about 1987 when I first found him in my local comics shop. Been hooked ever since.

I thought you were doing it on purpose because you are talking about remakes... as a form of sly comedy

My buddy got me to read Cryptonomicon for much the same reason. And like you I struggled through it. Snow crash was awesome, and Diamond Age was enthralling. The same buddy has been trying to get me into the Baroque Cycle with the promise that it's like Cryptonomicon but without all the ultra-dense technobabble.

>well, you could, but you'd have to make it MUCH more realistic
You mean, like Swordfish?

I'm gonna have to take a pass on the ogres and wizards stuff thnx

It's going to be poo caca shitty witty

SWEET CRIPPLED CHRIST...no. just...no.

Swordfish was fun, but it was about as realistic (technologicaly speaking) as a porn star's tits.

From looking at the cinema in the background it appears that the kids' time period has been moved from 1965 to 1989. Presumably this is so they can be adults in the present day.

I think this is a bad idea. A crucial part of the book was the forest that surrounded Maine at the time, which before the age of suburbia, was still vast and dense and mysterious. And on a more general note, King could add lots of bits of period detail and touches from his own childhood in the 60s, which really helped complete the world.

And yes, I agree, Beverley looks far too old. She's supposed to be 12? Those boobs could keep a sunken aircraft carrier full of men afloat for a week.