Stephen King's IT - Director's Cut, "Part 2" Coming

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Message
Author
User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23097
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Stephen King's IT - Director's Cut, "Part 2" Coming

#1 Post by AndyDursin » Mon May 04, 2015 5:06 pm

Always liked that King TV mini-series (excellent cast, terrific Richard Bellis score), despite the weak climax (though to be fair, how many King projects EVER have satisfying endings?). The cue Bellis wrote to end the production was lovely and had some very effective moments throughout.

It will be interesting to see how this fares, and who gets cast in the 2nd movie (the "adult" part -- which wasn't as good as the first half of the mini-series with the characters as kids).

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/4 ... -the-clown

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 5219
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: Stephen King's IT - 2-Part Movie Remake

#2 Post by Monterey Jack » Mon May 04, 2015 10:48 pm

WTF? They cast that punk kid from the desperately unfunny We're The Millers as Pennywise?! :shock:

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/will- ... 201446495/

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23097
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: Stephen King's IT - 2-Part Movie Remake

#3 Post by AndyDursin » Mon May 04, 2015 11:41 pm

Yeah...I was going to get to that. But of course, he "nailed it" in the audition. lol

Probably didn't want to pay an actual star or veteran actor...

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 5219
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: Stephen King's IT - 2-Part Movie Remake

#4 Post by Monterey Jack » Tue May 05, 2015 12:32 am

To be fair, I had a similar "HUH?!" reaction when I learned that Heath Ledger was cast as The Joker in The Dark Knight, but the difference there was, Ledger was a legitimate ACTOR, not some twelve-year-old-looking twerp whose biggest acting roles have been in We're The Millers and The Maze Runner. Maybe this will turn out to be a pleasant surprise and we'll be laughing at our doubts after we see the finished movie(s), but talk about a buzzkill. :? What, was Jackie Earl Haley asking for too much money?

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23097
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: Stephen King's IT - 2-Part Movie Remake

#5 Post by AndyDursin » Mon May 25, 2015 9:18 pm

Guess we may have not have to worry about this happening in the first place. $30 mil budget for 2 movies? That's pretty thrifty considering even POLTERGEIST had a $37 million budget.

http://deadline.com/2015/05/cary-fukuna ... 201432650/
Cary Fukunaga has left his gig directing New Line’s upcoming adaptation of Stephen King’s It. New Line and the True Detective director are going their separate ways owing to conflicts over budget, derived at least in part from creative differences, sources say.

This puts the production in an awkward place; shooting was scheduled to start in mid-June. To keep on track, the studio is going to have to find a new helmer soon. However, reports have it that the studio is holding firm on a $30 million budget, but submitted script drafts would have required much more finding and that even at this late date, a final draft has not been approved. There has been no word from New Line on either Fukunaga’s replacement, or how this shake-up might affect the production.

The film is based on Stephen King’s sprawling 1986 novel about a group of preteens terrorized by a malevolent entity that prays on children, called (of course) “It”. The group narrowly defeats the monster, but find themselves facing it again as adults. The monster appears mainly in the form of a clown calling itself Pennywise. The book was previously adapted for a 1990 tv miniseries on ABC; Tim Curry starred as the titular monster.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 5219
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: Stephen King's IT - 2-Part Movie Remake

#6 Post by Monterey Jack » Mon May 25, 2015 9:26 pm

That seems like a LUDICROUSLY small budget, even for a horror movie. No wonder Fukunaga bailed. :?

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23097
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: Stephen King's IT - 2-Part Movie Remake

#7 Post by AndyDursin » Mon May 25, 2015 10:47 pm

Monterey Jack wrote:That seems like a LUDICROUSLY small budget, even for a horror movie. No wonder Fukunaga bailed. :?
Well to be fair they saved some coin by hiring the We're the Miller's kid. Lol

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 5219
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: Stephen King's IT - 2-Part Movie Remake

#8 Post by Monterey Jack » Mon May 25, 2015 11:13 pm

Still, THIRTY MILLION for two movies...they probably spent close to that for the TV miniseries 25 years ago! :shock: I know the Stand miniseries cost $40 million back in 1994, but that was expensive by mid-90's network TV...to make a two-part theatrical movie that would no doubt require many different locations and a variety of special and makeup effects for a lousy $30 million these days is absurd. That crummy second X-Files movie from 2008 cost around that, and looked and felt extremely low-budget and chintzy. Like the Dark Tower movie/TV series that has been kicked around for the last five years or so, I'd rather not see this made at all that have it done half-assed like this (the presence of Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman for DT isn't exactly making me very excited :?). HBO should do both of these as a miniseries (and throw in The Stand while they're at it...considering the fetish for "cinematic universes" these days, a "Stephen King Universe" done on TV with an HBO budget and lack of ratings restrictions would be superb).

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23097
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: Stephen King's IT - 2-Part Movie Remake

#9 Post by AndyDursin » Tue May 26, 2015 1:56 pm

Apparently Fukunaga wanted to shoot in upstate NY, which costs $$. Maybe they could shoot in RI, we have tax credits down here (and the book is set in Maine to begin with).

No question it's definitely on the economical side. Even if they were treating it as one production -- one movie -- being split into two parts, that budget is lower than the POLTERGEIST remake.

I think the issue is R-rated horror has a ceiling (as does horror itself these days), so Warner puts a number on what they'll finance it for and that's that. To a degree, I get that. Fanboys can whine all day about why they're not spending $200 million on some R-rated genre picture, but they don't seem to realize PROMETHEUS -- which they all think flopped (but didn't) -- is one of the highest grossing "horror" pictures ever made if you even classify it as such...and even then it just did $125 mil stateside and, altogether, $400 mil worldwide.

Despite all that, if you're going to do a 2-part movie version of IT, that budget seems overly thrifty -- even with a cheap cast.

My guess is this thing doesn't get made at all if New Line/Warner was lowballing its production budget. Maybe it gets reconfigured as a TV mini-series -- again -- but then it loses some of its luster in the process, especially because it's already been done for TV. I mean, did everyone get excited by the SALEM'S LOT TNT remake? :shock:

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 5219
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: Stephen King's IT - 2-Part Movie Remake

#10 Post by Monterey Jack » Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:41 pm

Whuh-HA, whuh-HA, whuh-HA...! :shock:



Okay...I'm sold.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23097
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: Stephen King's IT - 2-Part Movie Remake

#11 Post by AndyDursin » Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:42 pm

Ha I was just posting that!

In response to what we discussed way back before, Warner did move cautiously with this and didn't greenlight Part 2. They'll make it -- if this hits their target, which makes sense.

Looks suitably creepy (if derivative of STRANGER THINGS, which the early part of this ad seems to be channeling) and the widescreen look of it is impressive. I'll be checking it out.

MJ - just for future reference you can paste the whole youtube link on the message board now and it will automatically link to it. No need to have to paste the video ID with the [/ youtube] tags anymore. :)

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 5219
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: Stephen King's IT - 2-Part Movie Remake

#12 Post by Monterey Jack » Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:28 pm

AndyDursin wrote: Looks suitably creepy (if derivative of STRANGER THINGS, which the early part of this ad seems to be channeling) and the widescreen look of it is impressive. I'll be checking it out.
They got one of the Stranger Things kids to play Ritchie Tozier. Plus, updating the "kids" segment to the late-80's made the comparison between the two inevitable.

Still, looks very creepy...I was a fan of the director's Mama, and this has a similar, elegant sheen to it.
MJ - just for future reference you can paste the whole youtube link on the message board now and it will automatically link to it. No need to have to paste the video ID with the [/ youtube] tags anymore. :)
Thanks! 8)

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23097
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: Stephen King's IT - September 8th

#13 Post by AndyDursin » Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:36 pm

They got one of the Stranger Things kids to play Ritchie Tozier. Plus, updating the "kids" segment to the late-80's made the comparison between the two inevitable.
They also used similar sounding music also, which I have to believe was very intentional. Is Alan Howarth available to score? lol
Still, looks very creepy...I was a fan of the director's Mama, and this has a similar, elegant sheen to it.
I liked parts of that, and how it was directed. My issues were more story related but seeing as the plot is all worked out here pretty much, he should be a good choice. Too bad they couldn't get it worked out with the first director, but perhaps it was for the best. Will be interesting to read what his deal was and how his version would've been different (unless it was all just budget related).

mkaroly
Posts: 4481
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Stephen King's IT - September 8th

#14 Post by mkaroly » Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:44 pm

It has been so long since I read this book...I kind of forgot a large portion of it (I do remember reading the last 200 pages in one sitting late at night in my Aunt's house which was at one time a barn...it was really dark out in the middle of the county...lol...perfect ambiance). The movie does look effectively scary and creepy - is this going to be shown on regular TV or through a pay station?

What did people here think of the TV remake of THE SHINING with the dude from Wings? I remember liking it, thinking that Jack's descent into madness was much better shown in the TV film than the movie (though Kubrick's move has a special place in my heart).

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 23097
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: Stephen King's IT - September 8th

#15 Post by AndyDursin » Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:45 pm

Sorry MJ -- I did something to your reply post and edited it by error. My apologies!

I do have my reply to what you wrote, at least, and the reply I typed to Michael:
MontereyJack wrote: Supposedly the reason why the original director was dropped was because he wanted to include the controversial "gang bang" scene from the book, plus a number of other sexually deviant moments that would have pushed the movie into NC-17 territory and which caused a lot of concerned parents to pull their kids from auditions. If so, good riddance. :shock:
Agreed, no thanks. He was the guy who did TRUE DETECTIVE, right? Must have been pushing for HBO levels of gratuitousness. Pass.
mkaroly wrote:The movie does look effectively scary and creepy - is this going to be shown on regular TV or through a pay station?
As MJ said (in the post I mistakenly edited), it's out Sept. 8th from New Line/Warner, with the prospects of a sequel that I would imagine would go into production very quickly if it performs well. They had this project designed as a 2-part film from the get-go, then dialed it back to a single first part with the promise of making the "present day" continuation if it's successful.
What did people here think of the TV remake of THE SHINING with the dude from Wings? I remember liking it, thinking that Jack's descent into madness was much better shown in the TV film than the movie (though Kubrick's move has a special place in my heart).
This is a long post Michael so bear with me, lol

I took this great "History of Horror" class at Boston College, during my senior year, that was taught by this professor who had written a bestselling nonfiction book named IN SEARCH OF DRACULA in the early '70s. He had become an authority on the real Vlad the Implaer and did a commentary on a Criterion CD-ROM (that's how long ago this was) of Nosferatu back at the time also.

The class was awesome, basically he showed a horror movie in two parts each week and also made you read a lot of Stephen King novels simultaneously...it was an easy "B" but hard to get an "A" if you know what I mean. (That said, I remember going to see this professor one time in his office -- and he had been on TV the night before, talking about the premiere of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER's TV series. And he was SHOCKED at how much he loved it, especially coming off the movie which was nothing more than mediocre. I told him I saw him on the news and I also loved the show, and he was thrilled someone else had watched it and felt the same (if he only knew how popular the show would become over the years too).

Anyway, that's how I became familiar with King's novels and THE SHINING in particular. I read through that, GREEN MILE, SALEM'S LOT, THINNER and something else at the time. I had only known THE SHINING previously from the movie, and really I've never felt the same about the movie since reading the book. No, the TV mini-series doesn't have the artistic vision and impact of Kubrick's movie at all -- but at the same time, Kubrick totally GUTTED the entire dramatic point, all the heart and soul, out of the story so that the film, IMO, only works on one level, as this kind of insane freakshow descent into madness. There's no nuance to it, and Nicholson is off the wall from the moment it starts, so the modulation and dramatic effectiveness of the material is wrecked. I mean, what's the point of just killing the Scatman Crothers character halfway through? He just lost interest in him?

No wonder King never liked the film or was disappointed by it. The TV version does have some creepy moments but like a lot of 90s TV, it's hamstrung by some mediocre CGI special effects and Mick Garris was never anything more than a workmanlike director. Still, it captures the HEART of the book and the redeeming nature of King's story -- none of which Kubrick had any interest in. And I felt it was very effective having Danny's "alter ego" end up being a future representation of his more-adult self too.

Overall, those King mini-series are good, if hamstrung by '90s TV special effects. Let's face it, a lot of that era's theatrical FX haven't aged well (neither have the video games, those N64/PS1 era titles) so the TV work is even more pedestrian.

I mean, THE STAND was awfully good I felt. Not an easy book to adapt but it was phenomenally well cast (Gary Sinise, Jamey Sheridan, Laura San Giacomo, etc.) and really held my attention when it aired initially. Haven't seen it since but the end was emotionally wrenching, and it had a great Snuffy Walden score (he called me up when I reviewed it for FSM!).

And even though the end confrontation with the "giant spider" was lame, IT was also very good. Really well acted and creepy. And Richard Bellis' score has some lovely moments, especially at the end. Sells that lovely ending with Richard Thomas and Olivia Hussey on the bicycle! Sappy, I know, but I loved it just the same.

You don't get climactic cues like this anymore -- TV or film (spoiler obviously if you haven't seen this already!):


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest