It | Sept. 8, 2017 | Warner Brothers | Andy Muschietti directing. Trailer on Page 12 NO SPOILER DISCUSSION. Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes

[baumer]

3 hours ago, Rman823 said:

I'm not a Chastanic (Does she really have a huge amount of fans) but as someone who read the book I would be satisfied with her casting and wouldn't care if it wasn't her. And sure these movies don't need big names but chances are WB will try and get some recognizable names. And as a fan of the book I feel the material deserves some A list talent. And yes most of the kids are unknown because that's almost the case anytime a group of kids is cast. There's just not that many known child actors. 

 

Awesome post. Agree with u 100%. Chastain imo would bring the feisty persona that Beverly has. I think she'll be a terrific choice not only because she's a good actress but because her character in Zero Dark Thirty seems to be a different version of Beverly but somewhere along the same lines.

[baumer]

2 hours ago, Rman823 said:

Unlike some other adaptations it makes sense to adapt IT into 2 parts given that it's over 1000 pages and has enough material to cover 2 movies.

 

They have to do it in two parts. Not only is the book over a thousand Pages, as I mentioned before the story is so ridiculously detailed and complex that to do it in one 3 hour movie would not do the story Justice at all whatsoever.

[boomboom234]

7 minutes ago, dashrendar44 said:

 

Futurist must be a Victor Salva fanboy if he's craving so much about an on-screen depiction of children gangbanging.

 

 

It's a scene that just takes you out of the novel I don't understand the purpose of it 

[John Marston]

It's interesting that many people watched the miniseries when they were kids

[Rman823]

15 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

They have to do it in two parts. Not only is the book over a thousand Pages, as I mentioned before the story is so ridiculously detailed and complex that to do it in one 3 hour movie would not do the story Justice at all whatsoever.

This is exactly how I've always felt. IT and The Stand are my two favorite King novels and both deserve to be done in more than 1 film even if it was over 3 hours. That's why while I enjoyed the miniseries for what it was able to do on TV I still longed for the day that the book would get a more faithful adaptation. 

[somebody85]

6 hours ago, The Stingray said:

Anyone else think Stranger Things might have had a hand in the success this trailer?

I'm sure it did (even though IT was an inspiration for ST). Have to remember that a lot of the audience for ST won't be able to get into IT though if it's rated R (and it damn well better be).

This being in Sept could be a very good lead up for ST fans who are eagerly waiting S2 in October and can get in though.

[baumer]

3 hours ago, boomboom234 said:

It's a scene that just takes you out of the novel I don't understand the purpose of it 

 

It's kind of explained pretty well in the novel and it does make sense.  You can dislike it, that's fine, but it makes sense.

[Rman823]

9 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

It's kind of explained pretty well in the novel and it does make sense.  You can dislike it, that's fine, but it makes sense.

It makes plenty of sense why it's there and what it represents but reading and seeing it is two separate things. Hasn't King come out and said his drug use around that time is what led to it ?

[Dementeleus]

39 minutes ago, Rman823 said:

This is exactly how I've always felt. IT and The Stand are my two favorite King novels and both deserve to be done in more than 1 film even if it was over 3 hours. That's why while I enjoyed the miniseries for what it was able to do on TV I still longed for the day that the book would get a more faithful adaptation. 

 

The miniseries for THE STAND (and, for that matter, for THE LANGOLIERS) are so much worse than the IT miniseries (not that it was amazing, aside from Curry).

[baumer]

3 hours ago, Rman823 said:

It makes plenty of sense why it's there and what it represents but reading and seeing it is two separate things. Hasn't King come out and said his drug use around that time is what led to it ?

 

I'm not sure.

 

But here's my take on it:

 

Spoiler

 

This was the end of innocence.  That whole summer was them merging into adulthood.  They were going through things that no one, but especially twelve year olds should have to go through.  It wasn't just IT, it was what IT did to the city of Derry.  The statistics about kids disappearing was something lik e6X the normal amount that another city in The US experiences.  Bev's father was a lunatic, Eddie's mom was a hypochondriac, Mike's father had experienced loss and mounds of racism, Bill lost his brother George, the bullies, the adults turning a blind eye to everything.  And no one was doing anything about the murders.  This dates back centuries.  And yet, finally, in 1958, these 7 kids, all bullied, all relatively impoverished families and all really young but heading into their teen years.....these kids finally take a stand.  They were the first ones to do it.  They used a lot of unconventional methods to accomplish what they did.  Richie's impression of the Irish cop came in handy, Bill's knowledge of silver bullets came in handy.  And then they did the underground smoke house like the natives did...they gave them visions and the guidance to know what to do.....and when they had their epic rock fight,that was when Mike became part of the group.  It felt like the circle was complete.  Bill had brought a couple of guys from his speech therapy class to the Losers, but none of the gelled.  But when Mike came into the circle, it felt complete.  So here they are, under the city, lost in the sewers, after they ostensibly killed IT.  They are lost.  And the summer is coming to an end.  Not only do they have to make a pact to make sure that if this happens again, they will come back to destroy but they all started the summer as innocent kids and now at the end of the summer, that innocence, that child like gleam, was gone.  They were entering adulthood faster than the other kids because they had done so much more.  So Beverly, precocious no doubt, understands that to keep a bond between all of them, the best way to do it, IN HER MIND, is to have them enter her...it's the same concept as when you were a kid and you and your friend decide to cut each other's fingers and place them on one another so you can be blood brothers.....you figure its a bond that can't be broken.  Beverly has the same ideas.  They need a bond, they need to promise and what better way to make a bond between 7 people than to do what adults do?  Although the kids are technically having sex, it didn't read as eroticized for me. For another, Bev is reclaiming something in that scene...her sense of self and power. Something her father was trying to take away, and something that she loses later on in her abusive marriage. So it didn't feel out of nowhere to me at all, but an element of Bev she repressed, a time when she moved from child to adult, on her own terms. A time when she had power she forgot.  This one act of temerity is, in her mind, something that will bind them together in the future.

 

Again, I'm not saying you or anyone else has to like it, but going by what they have been through, what awaits them above ground and where they are in life and what it represents symbolically, imo, it made total sense.  

 

 

[baumer]

3 hours ago, Telerian said:

 

The miniseries for THE STAND (and, for that matter, for THE LANGOLIERS) are so much worse than the IT miniseries (not that it was amazing, aside from Curry).

 

The Langoliers is a terrific story.  I didn't care for the TV movie but the book is terrific imo.

[Rman823]

Just now, Telerian said:

 

The miniseries for THE STAND (and, for that matter, for THE LANGOLIERS) are so much worse than the IT miniseries (not that it was amazing, aside from Curry).

Some of the casting in The Stand alone is WTF. I mean Molly Ringwald as Frannie ? The Langoliers is a whole other level of terrible though. 

[Dementeleus]

Just now, baumer said:

 

The Langoliers is a terrific story.  I didn't care for the TV movie but the book is terrific imo.

 

I read the novella in one night. Got so caught up in it I never even checked the time, just kept turning page after page... and suddenly it was morning. And I had tears in my eyes from the ending.

 

Dammit, it's a really good story.

 

...that fuckin' miniseries.  

[Rman823]

1 minute ago, Telerian said:

 

I read the novella in one night. Got so caught up in it I never even checked the time, just kept turning page after page... and suddenly it was morning. And I had tears in my eyes from the ending.

 

Dammit, it's a really good story.

 

...that fuckin' miniseries.  

Oh Balki...

[baumer]

3 hours ago, Telerian said:

 

I read the novella in one night. Got so caught up in it I never even checked the time, just kept turning page after page... and suddenly it was morning. And I had tears in my eyes from the ending.

 

Dammit, it's a really good story.

 

...that fuckin' miniseries.  

 

When (For @Telerian only...spoilers )

Spoiler

I found out that the reason you can't go back in time is because little Pac-Man like entities are eating it just milliseconds behind you, I almost fainted......that might be the greatest thing Kind has ever thought of.

 So good, such good story telling.....and yes....stupid TV movie.

[Eric the Marxist]

5 minutes ago, Telerian said:

 

I read the novella in one night. Got so caught up in it I never even checked the time, just kept turning page after page... and suddenly it was morning. And I had tears in my eyes from the ending.

 

Dammit, it's a really good story.

 

...that fuckin' miniseries.  

 

Bronson Pinchot was a national treasure in that series!

[robertman2]

I've see bits of Langoliers and that CGI was painful to look at. Not even joking

[somebody85]

Just saying that Jessica Chastain wouldn't be a bad choice for casting. I could see it.

[baumer]

I'll just end my night by saying that there is so much to the book.  It explores so many issues, many of them complex.  The movie(s) have their work cut out for them.  The 1990 TV movie was fine imo but it didn't come anywhere close to exploring a modicum of what the book gave us.  I really hope that with two films, they can bring the story to life.

 

Good night all.

[kayumanggi]

8 hours ago, Taylor said:

Trailer got 197M views in 24 hours, beating the previous record of 139M views (F8).

 

http://deadline.com/2017/03/it-stephen-king-trailer-traffic-record-warner-bros-new-line-1202056928/

 

This is insane.