Okay, I just got back from It. I was excited...

Okay, I just got back from It. I was excited, mainly because you stupid fucks have been memeing and hyping it up for ages. I loved the TV adaptation, and was a big fan of the books back in the day:

The new one is fucking terrible, and if you disagree, you fail to understand what a good adaptation is.

Not only did the film fail to create tense moments - a staple in the horror genre, it failed horribly as an adaptation.

The thing people need to understand about It is that, while it's a very long book, it's structured very simply
>kid is alone
>kid gets scared by clown
>kid goes and bonds with Losers club
Now, there are a few other scenes sprinkled in here and there, some background, etc. But that's basically the bulk of the Loser's Club arc.

IF you are going to adapt It, all you need to do is flip through the book, find your favorite scenes of It spooking the kids, and adapt them.

Instead, we get quick, uninspired scares with no tension, including:
>headless easter egg lad
>burning hands (why did they revise Mike's backstory?)
>dude zombies lmao (why did they add Patrick Hockstetter only to have him eaten by zombies?)
>the stupid ass projector scene
Seriously, a thousand pages of outlandish scares from a retarded clown, and you have the gall to just make your own shit up and slap it onto the screen?

Fuck you, It is the HIGHLIGHT of It, that's why the novel is called IT. You want to see what this fucking shapeshifting, Peppermint Twist dancing sack of prehistoric, extraplanar shit is going to do next.

THE MOVIE WAS BAD

FUCK YOU GUYS REEEEEEEEEEEEE

horror movies based on supernatural shit are never good

doesn't matter if its a clown, a demon, a ghost or a fairy, as soon as all that supernatural shit comes in i lose interest

Nice blog and double spacing. Give me one reason I should take your shitty opinion seriously

the 1990 miniseries is pretty shitty and you might as well stop watching after the first half, as for the book, most of that shit is pretty unadaptable with shit like the underage gangbang and the Turtle, 2017 IT wasn't trying to be the 1990 miniseries or the book, it was trying to stand out since everyone and their grandma has seen the miniseries, and some of the stuff in the new movie arguably works better, for example, why would a cosmic being that eats kids just leave the body lying on the street? Was the arm just enough? Bill trying to search for his brother is a much better motivation than just plain revenge, The one thing I agree it does worse is Mike, the only thing he provides to the story is the bolt gun, and even then he's not the one who uses it.

Kill yourself. My autism forces me to double space.

You don't need the Turtle mythology to have a faithful adaptation. Like I said, if the core of It is just kids getting scared then regrouping for scenes where they bond together, the art of creating a good adaptation lies in creating memorable scenes with It.

The scenes made up for the film are neither memorable nor scary, and that's the problem. Neibolt Street, an iconic part of the novel, was absolute shit, especially with how they "adapted" it.

Good job, you fell for the shills imbecile

The shit with the kids was done better in the movie than in the miniseries with the exception of Mike.

>getting this triggered over a movie
I have some stool softener you might wanna borrow, since, you know, you're obviously butthurt.

>I just watched the Half in the Bag and now I'm aping their opinion: The Thread

>t. Professional Contrarian.

I think the bonding segments were okay in this film. The swimming, the rock fight, the cleanup in Bev's room, all of that works. It's just that those parts aren't particularly poignant without frightening scenes to contrast them, and the scenes that we got just weren't that scary.

Also, the sewer finale in the miniseries was worlds better than what we got in this.

>I watch dumb meme shows so everyone else does too!
O-okay there, friend.

Are you seriously implying that Tim Curry Pennywise scary? Don't get me wrong, I thought he was great, but he's not scary in the slightest. The projector scene the movie would have been genuinely scary if it weren't for the flashing light and the loud noises

>I don't like the new movie
That's a fair opinion.
>the TV movie was good
Why do you feel compelled to lie to strangers?

I don't necessarily think that the miniseries is scary, but it's scarier than what we got. The snippets of horror aren't accompanied by bombastic music scores or sudden "shock" notes that tell you to be scary. Plus practical effects are always more timeless than CGI.

BACK THE FUCK OFF!?!?

Okay, I should clarify. The miniseries is not necessarily good, but it is a more fun and faithful adaptation, and Tim Curry obviously steals the show.

They both suck bro
>obnoxiously long Tim Curry variety hour made for TV movie
>generic hollywood blockbuster

Are you seriously this mad that a story that's more about the kids, doesn't have the correct jumpscares in it?

The original miniseries, as well as the book, are basically a monster mash, you got shit liked the wolfman and Frankenstein attacking the kids for a few minutes and then letting them go for whatever reason, meanwhile in the 2017 the forms IT takes are more personal fear to the Losers i. e. the leper for for Eddie (which was actually in the book but not the miniseries) or Georgie for Bill

Fair.

That's like half the fucking book. You aren't reading It for the bonding. Those parts are a nice reprieve from the crazy shit, but make no mistake, you're reading It for child orgies and kids getting chased by Paul Bunyan.

That webm is the best laugh I've had all week.

>you're reading It for child orgies
Congratulations you've baited everyone

>reading the 1000+ page book

fags like you shouldnt go watch movie adaptations because something will always end up not being to your liking

I also just got back. I'm a hip millenial so I was really excited about this. But It was literally the worst movie I've ever seen.

Was the orgy scene in the movie?

>if you disagree, you fail to understand what a good adaptation is

Uh, clearly you're the one who fails to see what a "good adaptation" is, if you think that the quality of the film is related to how accurate or faithful an adaption is. The literal lowest level of praise anyone can lop onto something is 'h-how faithful it was'. If you wanted faithful, read the fucking book.

Now, you can say the movie itself was bad or good, I'd say it's decent. But not because of how fucking faithful it was/wasn't.