Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
I should have made the caveat, that most King adaptations before a certain point in time were pretty bad. They did improve as they went along, at least the theatrical ones, but the made-for-TV crap like Langoliers (which was a really great story, just adapted horribly) was really lacking.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
September 16, 2017 at 6:38 pm (This post was last modified: September 16, 2017 at 7:21 pm by paulpablo.)
This post is one massive spoiler, hence the hide tags. I probably will have more to add to this, going to watch the film made me realize how much of a geek I am about this story.
The film gets about an 7 or 8 out of 10 from me.
I went to go watch IT tonight. Here are some pros and cons and what I thought about some changes they made to the story in comparison to the book and the early TV mini series.
Pros - It was more violent and brutal than the TV miniseries. I think the type of bullying the kids faced was more the standard of violence that was written about in the book, although the actual scenarios were not in the book at all.
The story was changed a lot which made it still surprising to watch even if you have seen the other miniseries and read the book.
Some good visual effects and the sound and music were really good. The acting was pretty much better than in the miniseries although that wasn't that difficult to upstage.
Some moments were captured that were in the book but not in the tv series, for example Eddie's leper, the house on neilbolt street, Henry killing his dad, and some scenes from the Barrons.
Loved the Easter Egg hunt bit that was covered, there were a lots of genuinely freaky moments.
Cons - There was some unnecessary changes, like in the book and the miniseries Bill's mother is playing fur elise on the piano so I didn't see a need to change that, if they would have left it in it would be guaranteed goosebumps to everyone who saw the first miniseries and read the book.
The scares were too quick with no build up. Not to say the scares weren't scary, but I felt like the build up to all of them was too fast paced. In the book for example the leper seems to have so much to say to Eddie, and you hear all of Eddies thoughts while he's playing alone beside this house, about homeless people and STD's and so on. But even the scenes that were brand new and not from the book or the TV series I felt could have just been a little bit slower.
There are parts in the book that in my opinion should have CLEARLY fucking been in this film. One of the scariest parts in the book is when Stan Uris is beside the standpipe looking for birds and he goes into the water thing and the dead drowned kids are walking up after him with their squelching wet feet.
The Patrick Hocksetter part of the book was another bit I was hoping would be given more time, in the book his backstory is one of the best most creepiest parts of the book. He's such a psycho that Pennywise has trouble turning into his fear until he settles on flying leeches. He killed his younger brother when he was young, in the book he's the one bully who's even more psycho than Henry is as a child. In the TV miniseries I don't think they barely mention him, in this they give him a part being one of Henry's lackeys.
I always got the impression from the book and the TV miniseries that Pennywise didn't literally make kids float, it was their minds that were floating in the deadlights. It was better that way I think, rather than having them literally floating.
I realize the film makers can't fit everything in, I wouldn't expect them to make the film longer but I can say that I for one could have sat down for an extra hour or so if the story of Patrick Hocksetter was explained at least a bit more fully, or if the scene with Stanley at the Standpipe was in it.
I realize it looks like I have a lot of cons here compared to pros, I did think the film was good overall, I just loved the book so much though the film obviously will have difficulty competing.
Some changes I feel neutral about. They made Henry's dad a cop. That was alright. In the book they have a full section on the fire at the black spot where the local KKK set fire to a party house sort of set up ran by black people this has obviously been morphed into the story of Mike's parents dying in a house fire. In the book his parents are still alive and I think it was Mike's father who was plagued my memories of the fire at the black spot, Pennywise wouldn't attack Mike with any sort of fear of fire, for him it was fear of a giant bird based on him being scared as a baby by a bird. I think the images of burning people probably is scarier than a giant bird so may even be worth the story change. I got the impression Bev didn't live with her mother, Ben didn't live with his cousin and Aunt like in the book and TV series.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
I hope they don't take too long to make the next one
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
My wife read the book and wouldn't come see the movie, but my two sons and I went at 11am on a Sunday morning. The place was nearly empty.
I hadn't read the book and I don't get into scary movies (too predictable), but that one was pretty damn good. Still didn't think it was too horribly scary, but it was really good. I'll get the dvd when it comes out.