 |
| Photo credit HERE Georgie McNuggets anyone? |
With news of a new IT movie coming out -- in two installments -- I decided to offer up some of my thoughts. I offer these for free (FREE) to Hollywood. You're so welcome!
1. There is no need to remake the entire IT movie. IT was made as a mini-series, and half of it is pretty good! How about this. . . just re-film the parts with the adults.
2. There is no need to re-script the novel, the mini-series script did it justice. It was special effects and some acting that made it. . . well, a little lame. Not big time lame, no sir! But just a little. . . not as cool as it could have been. Can you use an old script? I mean, why not? It was actually pretty faithful to the book, and worked through some of the problems in an acceptable way.
3. Could we please have Tim Curry again? Don't care if he's old now and has to do this with a cane -- he was awesome. The scariest clown ever.
4. Don't forget 11.22.63. Woldn't it be cool if the scene in 11.22.63, where Jack meets Bev and Richie, appeared in the IT movie? I mean, that wold be beyond coolified.
5. Please keep the years right! There was talk of moving the past scenes up to the 80's, and then the scenes where they are adults up to the present. RESIST! The stuff from the 50's was so cool!
I'm gonna have to disagree with you on most points. The miniseries was shot for tv, and looks like it. I'd rather have it all widescreen,. It will be much easier to frame all the characters that way too. Old Part 1 and a new part 2 would never fit together; it will ruin the watching experience.
ReplyDeleteI thought the script was rather poor, even for part 1. What bothers me to no end is that Pennywise barely ever tries to kill the kids during their first encounters. As It says in the movie, he just wants to say hello to them. I'd love to read the original 6 hour script someday, see if King and Romero are right about it being much better.
Tim Curry is a wonderful actor, love him, but he didn't come close to the creepy Pennywise from the book. Dunno, he was just lacking something that was in the book. I would like to see someone else tackle the role, and I do think it's very much possible to have someone pull of a better Pennywise. I hope they use the silver suit/eyes this time.
The 11.22.63 scene would be useless to the story, especially because it doesn't even take place during the events of It. We know we're gonna have to lose scenes from It even in a 4 hour movie. Wouldn't you rather have one of those scenes? It would be cool if they did the Richie & Bev part in the 11.22.63 movie and use the same actors, though!
Of course, the movie should be in 1958! It's just the perfect setting, and I'm saying that as an 80s kid. Some of the shapes It takes don't even make sense outside the 50s.
Dearest Georgies Arm,
ReplyDeleteit was mostly a joke. I am very aware that the miniseries was shot for TV, and it would be rediculous to splice together with new stuff.
Well, allow me to act as witness for the defense by saying thank you for acknowledging what made the miniseries work to begin with, Reverend.
ReplyDeleteAs the for the charge that Curry was unable to pull off a decent performance, I'm afraid there's nothing new in such criticisms. It is possible to become so enamored of a text that when the story is adapted to the screen it will be impossible to meet certain viewer expectations because the only movie they'll buy is the one in their heads.
It might work for some, however in the long run, it serves no basis for a valid criticism, the chief reason is that no two people ever see the same story in the same way.
For instance, for all those who say Curry isn't what they see in their heads out a handful of five people, how can you guarantee each person has the same image of the character. The answer is you can't, individual personality and taste practically assures against such a thing. In that sense there as many Derry's as there are Middle Earth's.
For the record, Curry captured the character in my head just fine, and you're right Reverend, he was Da Man in that film. as for the script, here's the funny thing. I've come believe the script might have captured some moments that SHOULD have been in the novel, i.e. Bill visiting George's grave and having a heart to heart with Pennywise.
As for the time setting, the whole point of setting the novel in the 50s is that it abstracts the events from being bogged down by any one decade and makes it a story for all times and seasons. By casting back in 1958 King manages to give the year a timeless quality, something which is actually captured in the miniseries which is one of the reasons why it works so well.
In conclusion, the miniseries of IT is a adaptation that just doesn't get enough love.
Defense rests it's case.
ChrisC
(: defense
ReplyDeleteYes, I thought Curry did great. But said opinion has already been testified to on witness stand.
Personally, I think Curry was great. My vote is that he be portrayed by Andy Serkis in the new version, either via mo-cap or via plain old acting and makeup.
ReplyDeleteAs for the miniseries itself, it doesn't work. The acting is bad, the effects are bad, the story is so truncated that all of the meaning is lost from it; it has some virtues, including Tim Curry and Seth Green and a mostly good soundtrack, but overall it feels like a movie based on a description of a Cliffs Notes version of a summary of the testimony of someone who heard what the book was about from someone who read it.
Hopefully this new version will be better. Don't be surprised if the timeline is shifted, though; it seems like something that might be updated so that the era with the kids will be the '80s and the modern era will be, well, the modern era.
I'd have no problem with that, either.
I wonder what McDonald's Corporation will think about you using their iconic symbol to promote a child-killing entity. I guess you'll soon find out because I've already notified them of your copyright infringement.
ReplyDeleteHave a nice day, asshole.
I'm guessing ole Anonymous here is unaware that parody -- which that picture is -- is protected under the First Amendment, and is therefore not actionable.
DeleteAlso, the Internet is loaded with similar images, which a cursory Google Images search would make plain to anyone who took ten seconds to research it.
Also, now I kinda want a Fliet O' Fish and some Chicken McNuggets...
Anonymous is also unaware that:
ReplyDelete1. You should write your name on your paper. If you're not willing to stand behind what you say, don't say it.
2. Typically -- If you cuss at my blog, I delete the comments. Imagination trumps cussing anyday; and it's best not to make the creator mad.
3. I didn't create the picture.
4. Life is way too much fun to ruin it by being grouchy.
Wow. Anonymous is a mega prick. Who the hell but the CEO of McDonald's would be so pissed off about a humorous picture? I hope he was being sarcastic or trolling. Unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete