Latest on MJJC

It (2017 Film Adaption)

Victory2004

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
4,284
Points
0
Location
California
IT (2017 Film Adaption) (Directed by Andy Muschietti)

Pics of Actor Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise The Clown
00002124511pennywise.jpg
stephen-king-it-pennywise-bill-skarsgard.jpg
 
Last edited:
[h=1]Tim Curry Confirmed for Upcoming Doc ‘Pennywise: The Story of It’[/h] By John Squires | Mar 21, 2017 9:33 am @freddyinspace


pennywise-doc.jpg

From Dead Mouse Productions, producers of You’re So Cool, Brewster! The Story of Fright Night, and John Campopiano, director of Unearthed & Untold: The Path to Pet Sematary, comes the ultimate documentary for the 1990 miniseries adaptation of Stephen King’s IT.
Back in December of last year, we exclusively broke the news about Pennywise: The Story of It, a fan-made doc that will delve deep into the 1990 miniseries that made an entire generation terrified of clowns. Today we’re excited to report that not only has production begun, but a piece of teaser art has been revealed. Oh and more importantly, Tim Curry has been confirmed!
Yes, Curry will talk all things Pennywise in the doc, which is hugely exciting given how seldom he has been interviewed about the miniseries over the years. As you probably noticed, the various home video releases of the adaptation have been seriously lacking in the form of special features; needless to say, a feature length doc featuring Curry is just what we’ve been craving.
Campopiano told us last year:
As a super fan of Stephen King’s IT for as long as I can remember, it’s been my dream to tell the story of the making of the movie and to unpack why Tim Curry’s portrayal of Pennywise the Clown has resonated so deeply with so many people for the last two and a half decades. As with any documentary of this kind, the gold really lies within the people and places responsible for bringing a film to life: cast, crew, and the film’s locations. Going a step further, it would be impossible to examine IT and Pennywise without also looking at the phenomena of coulrophobia, i.e., fear of clowns.
​
The passionate team has already uncovered a wealth of never-before-seen photos from the production of the miniseries that they can’t wait to show off. And we can’t wait to see them.
Be sure to follow the Dead Mouse Productions Facebook page for the latest updates!


http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3429020/tim-curry-confirmed-upcoming-doc-pennywise-story/
 
Id like to see that documentary.. I had a dream/nightmare last week about IT! lol
 
IDK the last time I've been excited for a horror movie like that!! it's been years
 
Didn't like it. As with Mama, Muschetti is obsessed with digital effects to scare his audience. Pennywise has a cartoony feel, and suffers throughout the film from familiarity. Bill Skarsgard's performance is lost beneath an armour of digital effects. The scare set pieces come with such regularity they feel familiar and almost mundane.

A couple of cheap jump scares made me move in my seat but this wasn't scary to me in any other way.

The Losers were fun though. And Richie has some hilarious one liners.

Muschetti was the wrong person to take the reigns of this film. Oh what could have been...*dreams of Fukunaga*
 
Clearly you're in the minority cus this is one of the best Stephen King adaptation's i've ever seen.
 
I'll be seeing it today, most reviews have been super positive!
 
Alright, Got out of the movie..

It was a well put together film, definitely brought Stephen Kings story to life. I'll say of course since I am adult now it wont haunt me the same way the original IT movie.. Than again if I watched the original now for the first time I'd probably think it was ridiculous in some ways.. I think the CGI was a catch 22, it brought some things that the original could not to life - and also bring separation from natural visual expectations from something 'scary'.. On the other hand, in sommme fashions it can take away with some authenticity..

overall though a very well put together horror movie..
 
KOPV said:
Alright, Got out of the movie..

It was a well put together film, definitely brought Stephen Kings story to life. I'll say of course since I am adult now it wont haunt me the same way the original IT movie.. Than again if I watched the original now for the first time I'd probably think it was ridiculous in some ways.. I think the CGI was a catch 22, it brought some things that the original could not to life - and also bring separation from natural visual expectations from something 'scary'.. On the other hand, in sommme fashions it can take away with some authenticity..

overall though a very well put together horror movie..
Click to expand...
Gotta respectfully disagree that it took away from the authenticity. I thought it felt seamless enough for the most part without getting distracted by it. Btw the 1990 IT was a 2 part TV miniseries and to also add that it's not a remake of that either. More of an adaption of King's novel.
 
^ Yeah, just a large % of people watched the film before reading the book.. I mean those who would have read the book when released would most likely be 50+ and a Stephen King reader at the time.. the publicity that movie gave the book changed things! When most people hear IT they think of the clown they saw on TV THAN ask if you've read the book..

Anywho, Yeah I get they are different adaptations and I personally think this movie brings the book to life more than the original.. Just watching horror films now doesn't haunt me the same way as when I saw that clown as a pre teen..

CGI wasn't bad, not saying that.. Just think they could have dialed back on a few things 15%.. could have used a little more of dark space (ie pennywise eyes not reflecting in water vs. reflecting). That type of thing brings a visually more creepy feel for the audience on a subconscious level..
 
Just saw this and I really enjoyed it. It was a really good movie. I haven't read the book or seen the mini series so I can't compare this to them. I knew almost nothing before watching. Child actors were great and I liked the 80s setting. The only actor I wasn't sure about was the clown's. He was good when he wasn't talking.
 
Does anyone know about the release of the IT documentary that supposed to be/come out? as in were there dates with that?
 
oh wow ok! I guess there is a wait! I figured they'd use the hype from this new release to get some more attention..
 
KOPV said:
^ Yeah, just a large % of people watched the film before reading the book.. I mean those who would have read the book when released would most likely be 50+ and a Stephen King reader at the time.. the publicity that movie gave the book changed things! When most people hear IT they think of the clown they saw on TV THAN ask if you've read the book..

Anywho, Yeah I get they are different adaptations and I personally think this movie brings the book to life more than the original.. Just watching horror films now doesn't haunt me the same way as when I saw that clown as a pre teen..

CGI wasn't bad, not saying that.. Just think they could have dialed back on a few things 15%.. could have used a little more of dark space (ie pennywise eyes not reflecting in water vs. reflecting). That type of thing brings a visually more creepy feel for the audience on a subconscious level..
Click to expand...
As I said, for the most part the CG felt seamless and having cared about all of the kids it didn't bother me so much. And Pennywise isn't so much a clown as he is a metaphor. Yeah when the miniseries aired in 1990 it had many limitations especially since being broadcast on network television, they would of never been able to get away with half the stuff done in this movie Btw i'm blown away at the records the film has been breaking. $123 MILLION in its 3 day weekend box office!! That's incredible for a horror film.
 
Victory2004 said:
As I said, for the most part the CG felt seamless
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely not. Seen a few articles talking about how the use of CG will date the movie fast. I'd certainly agree with that. It really bothers me in horror films when practical effects, or simply make-up, could be used but they opt for CG. Sheer laziness or money can be the only reason as far as I'm concerned.
 
those who havent seen it, go see it!

It's breaking records for a reason...
 
ChrisC said:
Who said that? The articles I referenced were discussing whether the movie will age well or not.
Click to expand...
If I thought the CG was bad then maybe i'd agree with you but i've seen the film TWICE already. But I will agree that CG sometimes can be lazy but didn't think it was in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top