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

[Water Bottle]

19 minutes ago, filmlover said:

I'm guessing he wanted to embrace the more fucked up parts of the book (like that infamous scene, which was never, ever going to be even filmed, not with actual child actors in the parts and their parents close by every day on set) and they said "nope."

 

Remember the Hounddog controversy with Dakota Fanning? Killed that movie.

[filmlover]

6 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

Remember the Hounddog controversy with Dakota Fanning? Killed that movie.

I had completely forgotten that movie's existence. No thank you for reminding me.

[baumer]

As mentioned previously, the SCENE worked well in the book.....but there's no need for it in the film...and furthermore, how could you film it?  Parents of the child actors would lose their minds.

[NoobSaibot]

If what you guys are talking about is that scene, there's just no way it would make the cut even if it had been filmed. It's not something you even want to put a child actor through. Even though we know it's fiction.

 

Plus, I think it would ruin the mood of the film anyway. I think leaving it out is for the best.

[Rman823]

1 hour ago, filmlover said:

It was the shot of him rising up from the water with that creepy stare that was pure nightmare fuel.

 

I'm guessing he wanted to embrace the more fucked up parts of the book (like that infamous scene, which was never, ever going to be even filmed, not with actual child actors in the parts and their parents close by every day on set) and they said "nope."

Don't quote me on this but I think I heard he was pushing for borderline NC-17 material (beyond that certain scene) which would fit the statement about it being too offensive for Warner. 

Edited March 31, 2017 by Rman823

[Water Bottle]

1 minute ago, baumer said:

As mentioned previously, the SCENE worked well in the book.....but there's no need for it in the film...and furthermore, how could you film it?  Parents of the child actors would lose their minds.

 

The parents of the child actors would probably be aware of any such scene was shot: they'd have to agree to do it after all. It's not something they'd spring on the child actors and their parents. More than likely, if they did it, they wouldn't actually show it on screen but just hint at it. I'm not arguing for them doing the scene, just pointing out that IF they did it, it wouldn't be explicit.

 

It doesn't matter though. Like you said, it's not necessary for the film and there's no way a film aimed at the masses would want to cover such a topic.

[filmlover]

Plus, how awkward it would be for the parents, who were no doubt present on set for every scene supervising, to actually watch their kids even act out such a thing.

[JB33]

Y'all got me real curious about this scene. I guess it's probably morbid curiosity, by the sounds of it.

[FantasticBeasts]

Can someone spoiler tagr me what THAT scene is?

I am trying to remember but no result so far...

[theultimatebiu]

Are people still asking whether that scene will be filmed? Of course it would never be filmed....ever.

 

The scene, from memory,

Spoiler

was after the kids defeat IT and after they have realised that IT's power is connected to their childhood...so to remove the possibility of IT coming back they all decide to lose their virginity. The only girl in the group then lets each of the boys have sex with her.

 

That's from memory. I havent read the book in over 20 years.

[MCKillswitch123]

THAT scene is basically

 

Spoiler

an orgy between Beverly, a girl from the Loser's Club, and all of the boys from the club, in order to wipe out childhood connections through virginity (since childhood memories are what draw Pennywise's power).

 

Which, in today's world, would NEVER, EVER, EEEEEEEVER be filmed. Not in a Hollywood movie, at least. People thought Fede Alvarez took it too far w/the turkey baster in Don't Breathe, so expect a rabid riot if that were to be a thing.

Edited March 31, 2017 by MCKillswitch123

[RandomCat]

8 hours ago, filmlover said:

It was the shot of him rising up from the water with that creepy stare that was pure nightmare fuel.

 

Oh? Well, not sure how that was a jump scare. Either the jump or the scare part. It looked ridiculous.

[somebody85]

19 hours ago, John Marston said:

 

 

 

seems every top rated comment is about 2:16 lol 

That happened yesterday, it seriously turned into a meme. Buzz is huge for this. WB just has to continue with the strong marketing. If the movies good and lives up to it's potential, it's going to be another Conjuring (like the original) with people rushing out to see it expecting to be terrified. Guess we'll see how the marketing plays out.

Agree with the Collider guys...it has one of the best posters of the year.

Edited March 31, 2017 by somebody85

[RandomCat]

Ugh...I really should stay away from this thread. That scene was pointless and just there to be shocking. Much like most of King's work, pointless and trying to be shocking.

[somebody85]

18 hours ago, The Stingray said:

I think it looks good. Not great but good.

 

I am slightly worried about the reasons former director Cary Fukunaga gives as to why he left the project:

 

"In the first movie, what I was trying to do was an elevated horror film with actual characters. They didn’t want any characters. They wanted archetypes and scares. I wrote the script. They wanted me to make a much more inoffensive, conventional script. But I don’t think you can do proper Stephen King and make it inoffensive."

 

This line has always worried me too but I've heard the basement scene at the end of this trailer is taken right from his script among a few others shown. Going to try to keep hope that the movie itself is not just a scare fest.

[somebody85]

12 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

Oh? Well, not sure how that was a jump scare. Either the jump or the scare part. It looked ridiculous.

No I think Pennywise looked awesome there...it's when he started running that it turned into a cliche jump scare. That was the best he looked in the entire trailer. No music was needed or anything. His eyes spoke for the whole scene.
 

I was having fun watching reactions to this trailer (yeah reactions on Youtube are stupid) because I wanted to see how the GA would react to the jump scare stuff here and it went over really well with them so I understand why WB put those scenes in the trailer. I wish horror still had the ability to startle me like that. A loud boom doesn't make me flinch.

Like I love Halloween Horror Nights but they can't scare me. I'll go to see the house designs and I love to walk through my favorite horror movies (Orlando is usually really faithful). But yeah...someone can get right in my face out of nowhere and it will do nothing. If I'm with someone, I get way more entertained seeing their reaction and pointing them out to the scareactors. Especially the ones with the fake chainsaws....lol

I think this movie might be the same. A lot of people are going to go to see others get scared. I still remember the uneasiness people had in the theater before 2003s Texas Chainsaw Massacre. That was another awesome trailer and marketing campaign.

I hope the jump scare stuff is seriously toned down in the actual movie though.

[dashrendar44]

The most scary shot for me was not the jump scare at the end (even if just seeing Pennywise's eyes slowly creeping his head out of the water behind the kid's projection is chilling) but the slow reveal when the projector becomes "possessed". There's something creepy about that flicking pixillation slowly revealing who's behind that hairdo.

Edited March 31, 2017 by dashrendar44

[baumer]

1 hour ago, RandomJC said:

Ugh...I really should stay away from this thread. That scene was pointless and just there to be shocking. Much like most of King's work, pointless and trying to be shocking.

 

Wrong

[RandomCat]

1 hour ago, somebody85 said:

No I think Pennywise looked awesome there...it's when he started running that it turned into a cliche jump scare. That was the best he looked in the entire trailer. No music was needed or anything. His eyes spoke for the whole scene.
 

I was having fun watching reactions to this trailer (yeah reactions on Youtube are stupid) because I wanted to see how the GA would react to the jump scare stuff here and it went over really well with them so I understand why WB put those scenes in the trailer. I wish horror still had the ability to startle me like that. A loud boom doesn't make me flinch.

Like I love Halloween Horror Nights but they can't scare me. I'll go to see the house designs and I love to walk through my favorite horror movies (Orlando is usually really faithful). But yeah...someone can get right in my face out of nowhere and it will do nothing. If I'm with someone, I get way more entertained seeing their reaction and pointing them out to the scareactors. Especially the ones with the fake chainsaws....lol

I think this movie might be the same. A lot of people are going to go to see others get scared. I still remember the uneasiness people had in the theater before 2003s Texas Chainsaw Massacre. That was another awesome trailer and marketing campaign.

I hope the jump scare stuff is seriously toned down in the actual movie though.

 

I still don't see how it's a "jump" scare or is this the same as calling the ending of split a "twist".

[RandomCat]

9 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

Wrong

 

Well, If you say so. Still think King is a hack who brainwashed his fans to confuse shock with scare