It (film) - Stephen King

[Neil]

So now "New Line" are taking the reigns of this film adaptation. Really not sure about it becoming TWO films? Is there enough meat on the bones for that? Anyway... note my avatar http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/322...-it-adaptation After five years of development on the project, Warner Bros. Pictures is handing over development of its new film adaptation of Stephen King's "It" to its New Line division. It's a rare move, but not unanticipated as the companies are now becoming more clearly defined about what films they intend to make. New Line will now take the lead on horror projects. At last report, filmmaker Cary Fukunaga ("Jane Eyre," "True Detective") had been hired to direct a two-film adaptation of "It" which Roy Lee, Dan Lin, Seth Grahame-Smith and David Katzenberg will produce.

[Geordie9]

hmmmm

[Neil]

hmmmm hmmmm as in hmmmm , or hmmmm as in hmmmm , or hmmmm as in hmmmm ?

[MoonSylver]

hmmmm as in hmmmm , or hmmmm as in hmmmm , or hmmmm as in hmmmm ? Hmmmmm as in . Hurm.

[Neil]

Well, IT chapter 1 I thought was a pretty good film. Having just seen IT chapter 2, I'd have to say the second chapter is not as solid and good as the first, runs a tad too long IMHO, but it still has its moments.

[bassman]

I enjoyed both films. They have their highs and lows, but overall work quite well. I was so disappointed when my audience didn’t seem to react to the massive reference to The Thing. By the time Hader delivered the famous line, I wanted to cheer! Apparently the director is working on an edit combining both chapters, as well as NEW footage. That definitely feels excessive, but I’ll have to see it out of curiosity.

[ProfessorChaos]

The wife and I saw the first one in theaters, and perhaps went in with a bit too high of expectations, because we both left scratching our heads about what all the fuss was about. We both agreed that there were too many dumb-ass jump-scares, and Pennywise wasn't the least bit scary or menacing, just goofy. There were times when we were actually giggling at how ridiculous his dancing and over-acting were. Decided to skip the second one, and from everything I've read online, it was probably a wise choice. Doubt we'll even bother watching it when it is available for free.

[shootemindehead]

This thing is only called 'It' to cash in on the name. The only similarities is that is had a clown and some kids in each story, but it's nothing like the King yarn. The first was OK, but just OK. Cannot understand all the fawning over it and as the Prof said above, the lukewarm, to be polite, reception to part 2 makes me happy to leave the second one for a rainy Thursday night. All in all, this version of 'It' appears to very basic stuff that some people are elevating unjustly.

[Neil]

I was so disappointed when my audience didn’t seem to react to the massive reference to The Thing. By the time Hader delivered the famous line, I wanted to cheer! Our audience got it

[bassman]

i understand that these films aren’t to everyone’s liking, and admittedly it’s been years since I’ve read the book, but I was under the impression that it’s a fairly close adaptation? King himself loves the movies and appears in chapter 2, so apparently he’s on board with it?

[shootemindehead]

There are a few scenes lifted here and there from the book, like the Georgie opener. But it's nothing like it AFAIC. It's practically it's own thing, not that that's a bad thing in itself. But it's also very mediocre too. Now, I haven't see Chapter 2, but from what I can gather, that's an even bigger departure from King's novel. As for King being on board with it, I think he's just softened to film adaptations over the years and he gets a whopper royalty check too.