*chomps your leg*

*chomps your leg*

...

The old one was scarier because it left more to your imagination. CGI monster teeth in first encounter was underwhelming.

by this logic every film maker should just cut to black when something bad happens

lazy as fuck

>dude what if we adapted Stephen King but without any of the fun scary edginess
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Everyone uses the "le jaws approach" excuse when talking about filmmaker laziness like this. No, not showing something does not make it more interesting

edginess is bad my capeshit friends told me so

Well if you want to make a horror movie, then you typically go with what is scary.

I also never understood why IT (2017) has these goofy eyeballs veering off in opposite directions. It reminds me of a cow or a deer. Predators have eyes facing forwards. Makes the scene not scary at all.

god that movie sucked. best thing was bev, no pedo.

georgie knows something is off because why is a circus clown in a drain
he entices georgie in like a pedophile
it's meant to be shades of gacy

the new one is just a really obvious monster
it's jarring and stupid because no child would stick their arm down a drain to retrieve something from a scary looking clown that just did some bestial growl mid sentence

>the new one is just a really obvious monster
The fake adaptation's Pennywise sounded like a chain smoking pedophile. He was too obviously evil from the get go. The new version is more childlike even down to the anxiety he gets over Georgie almost getting away.

This movie floats like a stinky turd.

>The old one was scarier

No. The old movie is objectively terrible.

best thing was richie and eddie, you pedoshit.

It's so normie to think that shit stain miniseries was scary.

Tim Curry was the ONLY good thing and even he couldn't carry it.

>see this picture everyday
I gotta stop coming to Sup Forums now, this thing is just too spooky.

the practical effects on Tim Curry are objectively more terrifying in appearance

this is just overdone cgi shit

>the practical effects on Tim Curry are objectively more terrifying in appearance

Literally nothing about the 1990's series was "terrifying". Take off your nostalgia goggles.

Maybe you should actually read the definition of the word 'objectively' you dumb faggot

As opposed to nothing in this new one. I wonder what kind of american diabetes-creature finds this sort of simpleton jump scare CGI shitwank entertaining.

they actually put more effort and detail into how it actually acts around people.
>it tries its best to act normal to lure kids but its still an ancient space autist so something is incredibly off about it like how it's eyes start drifting off, drooling, breaking conversation flow because its hungry or whatever
>even changes its eyes from yellow to blue to make itself not look like a monster

I didn't see it when I was a kid. I've never even watched the movie, only seen clips of the effects.

I have. It fits perfectly with my statement. How anyone can think that laughable piece of shit is scary, let alone good, is downright baffling.

>shower heads stretch out and do nothing
>Tim Curry shows up
>ahhhhh teeth!!! So scary!!
>nothing else happens

Old IT is a comedy.

>As opposed to nothing in this new one

The child actors were all fantastic.

Did I say the new one was good faggot?

Tim Currey was a better IT.

I'm talking about how much more unnerving the practical effects of his monster visage are compared to ridiculous CGI deformed tooth maw.

Anyone who isn't new here has watched Goosebumps and AYAOTD. Both shows are edgier and more scary than Curry's shitty IT adaptaion. That's sad since IT the novel is nightmare fuel. I only read it 9 years ago and it gave me bad dreams.

I'll concede that point. It would have been wonderful without the clown and the "horror" elements.

It's so long and incoherent it makes retards lose sleep.

Well, I never read the story as a child but I've heard some things. In any case, I did read a snippet as an adult, as recently as a month ago, in which a young girl receives a train from 5 boys, described in great erotic detail, to the point that I stroked my cock while reading it, and was even able to cum.

>That's sad since IT the novel is nightmare fuel

The only part of the novel that spooked me was the Patrick Hockstetter chapter. I actually stopped reading it for a while once I finished that part because something about it got me good.

The bleeding photo of georgie and photograph book pennywise pops up in

I didn't find the new IT remotely scary, but I look at the "horror" elements as being an interesting and necessary part of strengthening the bonds of the kids. It's like a coming of age story, but with supernatural "spooky" shit being the catalyst for their character development.

The goofy music ruins that.

the kid actors in the new one are better
curry's pennywise is much better than the new one

>described in great erotic detail
But it isn't. It's a whole lot of "think of the birds".

bro you can't read subtext?

I can only paraphrase without looking back at him but it's clearly very, very erotic in a flowery way, obviously he's not GRRM describing her cunt becoming the world and pink masts, though in the latter case he uses other language to evoke that with ben...

They're not actual eyes, it's a shapeshifter. It doesn't use those things to see, they're just decoration as far as It is concerned.

Sorry, that's not straight forward enough for my autistic Red Letter Media fueled brain.

No, they were goofy and completely out of touch. There was nothing ineresting about the pennywise character.

>i exist to feed on children so whenever i have one in my grasp i will let them go!
*runs away*

wow truly horrifying stuff

Hey, he tried to eat them in the new one.

>No, they were goofy and completely out of touch

No they weren't, they were necessary for the kids. Pennywise himself is shit though.

Why do Americans always eat up bad movies?

Best thing was the 80's atmosphere you dirty plebs.

Did you boys read the script where Pennywise is on a tricycle and sticks a fork into a socket to transform into a monster? That was such a great segment I wish it was in the final film.

that's only from ~9% of the population that saw it

>people actually think this looks good

It was a perfectly comfy movie.

*GLOMPS YOU*
:3

It's got some fine actors that only Gen X and some Millenials recognize.

>It's got some fine actors

But all the adult actors were shit.

The red heads scared reaction in this scene was great. She looks genuinely terrified.

I don't find It scary at all in the slightest now, but looking at that pic reminds me of the nightmares that It gave me as a kid.
I remember it from always seeing it when we went to the electronics section of this Kmart where we lived. It wasn't until I saw it again tonight that I realize how easier it was to get scared--especially at the cover of some stupid Stephen King t.v. adaptation.

I've only seen the first part (a few years ago) and I don't care for it at all. I'm just kind of sad that I'm not at that time in my life when garbage or mediocre horror movies (not It, because it's not about that) can scare me just with an image.

I feel like one of the reasons this movie is so popular is because of all the underage yaoi fangirls who ship these two. Their popularity even made headlines.

Are fujobucks the key to a hit movie?

So Sup Forums hates this movie all of a sudden?
Fucking hell

I only started browsing Sup Forums again very recently, I find it hard to believe this place ever liked it. Sup Forums hates anything that's popular.

The problem is there is just no way this Eldrich monster can be defeated by kids

It's not from this world. It doesn't obey predatory rules of our universe. Don't be an idiot.

They’re both terrible. Here’s the problem, Stephen King is a terrible writer. He’s only revered because because Kubrick made the masterpiece The Shining (which King hated).

Are these the trips of truth?

retard

he is an alien shapeshifting, his human form is just a balloon

But it lives off children's fear. Without it, it's powerless.

You should watch the movie, you get less than 1 second to determine what is going on in the scene and how shit the cgi is. That one image with him moving his head really rapidly I was surprised as I watched the movie "this is the part Sup Forums is memeing about?" it was literally less than half a second for a microscopic scene, nothing to meme about except that it looks goofy in a still image.

The movie is fine, its not spectacular, but it does its job as it should.

The pace of the film is what killed it for me, feels like its being played in fast forward

Pennywise can create minions from children that are not afraid. He has two minion, a witch minion and a zombie minion.

Neither in the movie nor the source material, stop shilling this bullshit.

To be fair, it's a lot of material to cram into one movie.

Richie = Eddie > Bev > Bill > Ben > Stan > Mike

That never fucking happened.

>screeching autist clown rushing forward in terrible CGI that is used multiple times accompanied by jarring clang sounds is good.

Shit taste niggerachi

Get off Sup Forums, Jay.

That's right Mike, IT was a great movie, whatever was I thinking!

>his human form is just a balloon

wat

based minionposter

I've heard Pennywise is actually female and pregnant? Literally how and why?

Bookfags, explain this shit.

>> not watching it solely for beaverly
pleb.

That's right, Mike. Pussy is all that is required for a good film. This is why Striptease is considered a cinematic masterpiece!

Why hasn't anyone corrected OP yet? He bit off his arm,not his leg.

>le 80s

Why did you quote every fucker in the thread, you degenerate retard.

You said finger, not whole hand.