Hollywood remaking ANOTHER movie :-/

[SF1900]

I am sure most of you remember the movie "It." Novel written by Stephen King. Looks like they are remaking it. 



http://screenrant.com/it-stephen-king-movie-production-start/

It’s time to remember again, kids, because the Losers’ Club is officially back in action. Director Andy Muschietti has announced that production on his film adaptation of Stephen King’s It has officially begun.

This new version of It, which was originally adapted in a 1990 TV mini-series starring Tim Curry and the late Jonathan Brandis, had been knocking around for years with several false starts and setbacks that delayed production on the picture. At one point in time, True Detective season 1 director Cary Fukunaga was on board to direct the two-film project, but he and New Line Cinema parted ways over creative differences last year.

Now, Muschietti (known for his 2013 fright fest Mama) has revealed the start of production on Instagram with a picture of his director’s chair bearing the film’s title art and the caption “Day One” along with another image featuring some red balloons floating in his office on set. The red balloons, while innocent on their own, are a pretty creepy sight in the context of this film because they signify the presence of the murderous Pennywise the Clown, who’ll be portrayed by Bill Skarsgård (Hemlock Grove) in the new iteration, and were often used by him to lure unsuspecting children into his lethal underground lair (poor little Georgie).

Even though Fukunaga is no longer part of the production, his vision won’t be completely lost from this retelling because It is still expected to come in as two distinct films. The first will reportedly show the main characters as youths battling against their fears, the town’s bullies, and, of course, Pennywise himself during the height of his child-killing spree, while the second will feature their reluctant reunion as adults to finish what they started together once It returns to Derry, Maine after decades of dormancy.

In addition to Skarsgård, the first film’s cast also boasts Jaeden Liberher (Midnight Special) as the young Bill Denbrough, Sophia Lillis as Beverly Marsh, Wyatt Oleff as Eddie Kaspbrak, Finn Wolfhard as Richie Tozier, Jeremy Ray Taylor as Ben Hanscom, Jack Grazer as Stan Uris, Chosen Jacobs as Mike Hanlon, Owen Teague as Patrick Hockstetter, Nicholas Hamilton as Henry Bowers, and Javier Botet as The Leper.

After so many years spent in limbo, it’s great to see Stephen King’s It finally moving into production, isn’t it? On the other hand, if this thing turns out to be even half as creepy as King’s book and the TV miniseries version, our collective nightmare fodder will get a terrifying boost from watching it for sure. In the spirit of It, though, the fears will be well worth facing.

Stephen King’s It is scheduled to hit U.S. theaters on September 8, 2017.

[calfzilla]

 

[Mitch]

I'm ready to bet my washer that they will over do it.

[Svengoolie]

I was watching the jeff goldblum fly movie the other day and thought to myself that's how you remake a movie.

[SquatsRule]

As long as people continue to pay for this shit, they will continue to remake movies. There are several remakes in the works and the list keeps growing. We will be seeing less and less original movies as the box office will be dominated by remakes and super hero movies. Even some of the supposed new movies are actually remakes (The Force Awakens, Jurassic World, etc.).

[Grape Ape]

Was It a TV movie?  Can't remember.  Thought it was.

[The Scott]

Hollyweird refuses to remake itself into something better, instead choosing to regurgitate past success in an effort to introduce "new talent". 

[Nails]

then they ask why nobody goes to the theaters anymore to watch movies at $30 a person

[Mr Anabolic]

Hollywood = garbage.

[SuperTed]

Was It a TV movie?  Can't remember.  Thought it was.

Yes, it was a TV movie split into three parts. Quite entertaining overall with some memorable scenes but ruined by that stupid as fuck spider ending.

[BB]

Was It a TV movie?  Can't remember.  Thought it was.

That was an ABC Tv film back in the 90's, they were big into the Stephen King made for television game for a while.

[SquidVicious]

then they ask why nobody goes to the theaters anymore to watch movies at $30 a person

Movie revenues are at an all time high. Next time skip the $18 popcorn and soda combo, fatass.

[Grape Ape]

That was an ABC Tv film back in the 90's, they were big into the Stephen King made for television game for a while.

Thanks, that's what I sort of remembered.  Think the movie was a two or three night thing.

[Voice of Doom]

Actually, if it's done right I'd like to see this movie remade.  Outside of a superb performance from Tim Curry the other actors were b- grade TV level and the graphics and pacing were terrible.  It's a great premise and the original didn't do it justice.

[Henda]

Almost all these remakes get forgotten whole the original still gets reruns on the telly, darkie Conan and the fag total recall are two examples that come to mind

[Nails]

Movie revenues are at an all time high. Next time skip the $18 popcorn and soda combo, fatass.

i only do 4DX theater

[SF1900]

Was It a TV movie?  Can't remember.  Thought it was.

It was a TV movie. I am unsure if Hollywood (if it' even being done by Hollywood--if not, I stand corrected) is remaking this into a "standard" theatre movie or whether it will go straight to TV.

[Al Doggity]

Actually, if it's done right I'd like to see this movie remade.  Outside of a superb performance from Tim Curry the other actors were b- grade TV level and the graphics and pacing were terrible.  It's a great premise and the original didn't do it justice.

This can't be overstated. The original version was great for a tv movie, but it was a tv movie. Also, I'm a big Stephen King fan and I pointed out in a " Dark Tower"  thread I started a few weeks ago that King likes to have his work redone. Just off the top of my head, there have been multiple versions of " The Shining", " Salem's Lot" and " Carrie" .

I also want to point out that the idea of "originality"  in art is actually sort of a modern concept. It's funny that so many people deride it as crass commercialism because the development of the idea of original art is very closely tied with the development of copyright law. All throughout history, it was pretty common for well-known, respected artists to do their interpretations of well-known works. Even up into the 50s, it was common for artists to release entire albums of standards and for multiple versions of new hit songs to be released within a span of a few years.

[SF1900]

Actually, if it's done right I'd like to see this movie remade.  Outside of a superb performance from Tim Curry the other actors were b- grade TV level and the graphics and pacing were terrible.  It's a great premise and the original didn't do it justice.

So, it appear that it will be in the movie theaters, but in two parts:

The new film adaptation is also going to be made and released in multiple parts; two, to be precise. According to reports, the new version of Stephen King’s It will be broken in half, with the first film set in the past and telling the story of the characters’ teenage years. The main cast were a bunch of teen social outcasts, part of “The Loser’s Club,” tormented by bullies and a supernatural clown named Pennywise.

The second installment of the remake of Stephen King’s It will fast forward to the adult lives of “The Loser’s Club,” and tell the tale of how an adolescence spent fighting the demonic Pennywise would define the rest of their lives when it becomes apparent that Pennywise has returned to their hometown of Derry, Maine.

Fans can expect to see the first part of the remake of Stephen King’s It in theaters on September 8, 2017, assuming production goes according to plan.

[BB]

It seems like it will be standard studio bullshit -

Cary Fukunaga on his time with the project -

"Although reports indicated that the director actually left over budgetary concerns, he has maintained his claims that this was not the case, stating he had had bigger disagreements with the studio over the direction of the story. "I was trying to make an unconventional horror film. It didn't fit into the algorithm of what they knew they could spend and make money back based on not offending their standard genre audience. Our budget was perfectly fine. We were always hovering at the $32 million mark, which was their budget. It was the creative that we were really battling. It was two movies. They didn't care about that. 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." .

Variety article the above was based on, detailing his troubles with the studio -

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/cary-fukunaga-it-exit-1201584416/ .

[Taffin]

This can't be overstated. The original version was great for a tv movie, but it was a tv movie. Also, I'm a big Stephen King fan and I pointed out in a " Dark Tower"  thread I started a few weeks ago that King likes to have his work redone. Just off the top of my head, there have been multiple versions of " The Shining", " Salem's Lot" and " Carrie" .

I also want to point out that the idea of "originality"  in art is actually sort of a modern concept. It's funny that so many people deride it as crass commercialism because the development of the idea of original art is very closely tied with the development of copyright law. All throughout history, it was pretty common for well-known, respected artists to do their interpretations of well-known works. Even up into the 50s, it was common for artists to release entire albums of standards and for multiple versions of new hit songs to be released within a span of a few years.

Really? I had no idea (not a movie buff) - I'll have to try and track them down as I loved these two when I first saw them.  Thanks for that!   

[Al Doggity]

Really? I had no idea (not a movie buff) - I'll have to try and track them down as I loved these two when I first saw them.  Thanks for that!   

The second " Shining"  was a tv movie and King wanted to get it made because he felt Kubrick's version deviated too much from the novel. (Great film, but I agree). " Carrie"  was even a Broadway show. It was a flop and got eviscerated by critics, but King said he supported the idea because he loved to see his work translated into different mediums.

[Taffin]

The second " Shining"  was a tv movie and King wanted to get it made because he felt Kubrick's version deviated too much from the novel. (Great film, but I agree). " Carrie"  was even a Broadway show. It was a flop and got eviscerated by critics, but King said he supported the idea because he loved to see his work translated into different mediums.

Yeah, I read "The Shining" years ago and the whole set up of the kid's powers was much more clearly explained.  Not so much a fañ of "Carrie" but still watchable.  Since I typed that entry above I had a quick look on YouTube - couldn't resist watching a few clips/trailer of the original "Salem's Lot" - still gripping stuff and I think I might revisit it soon.  Having said that though, the cast for the 2004 remake was stronger than I expected - Rob Lowe, Donald Sutherland, even has Rutger Hauer in it for goodness sake!  Is it worth the 3hr watch in your opinion?

[Al Doggity]

Yeah, I read "The Shining" years ago and the whole set up of the kid's powers was much more clearly explained.  Not so much a fañ of "Carrie" but still watchable.  Since I typed that entry above I had a quick look on YouTube - couldn't resist watching a few clips/trailer of the original "Salem's Lot" - still gripping stuff and I think I might revisit it soon.  Having said that though, the cast for the 2004 remake was stronger than I expected - Rob Lowe, Donald Sutherland, even has Rutger Hauer in it for goodness sake!  Is it worth the 3hr watch in your opinion?

I think late 70s/early 80s is the creepiest period for films. There's something about the film stock, music, editing techniques, etc that just makes horror from that period really effective. Original " Salem's Lot" is a classic and genuinely chilling. I haven't seen the more recent version in about 10 years, but it was good. It was different from the original, definitely not as scary, but it was a real production. I wouldn't even really compare the quality of the two because they are so different.  When I saw the newer version, it was shortly after I had read the book and the differences from the book really stood out.  Then I saw the older version a few years later.

[stuntmovie]

It looks like Hollywood is reluctant to  take a financial risk of $100,000,000 to $200,000,000 on an unproven 'concept' so they remake films that have been successful in the past.

SO now we can watch for the latest version of Planet of the Apes, King Kong, Star Trek, Batman, Superman, Tarzan, etc. until one or the other is a proven box office flop.

Future superhero scripts with an up to date 'twist' might involve the trials and tribulations of a married superman and his problems with a nagging wife and his super kids who can't stay out of trouble due to his/her super-powers as a teen. (A completely different concept!)

No alien catastrophes nor 120 mile per hour car chases  through Downtown Manhattan nor massive amounts of bullets flying through the air.

DOGGITY, Thanks for your interesting comments but I am not a Stephen King fan at all. I've tried but I just can't get interested in what he's writing simply due to the fact that it takes him too damn long to say it.

I read The Shining and saw The Shining and the only thing I liked about The Shining was Jack Nickerson's performance in the movie.

But I never did find the scarrie part and the movie's ending was totally different than the book's if I recall correctly.

But everyone I know think it's one of his best books and the movie was the greatest.