I was only just today made aware the movie IT that comes out this week is only half the book. Presumably the Kid’s half. Rather than alternate the story they are showing the flashbacks as a complete movie and then the “present day” stuff as a separate movie later. This makes sense but I was unaware of it and figured other might be too so figured I would post something.
Kinda like the way they presented only part of James Michener’s Hawaii in the movie named Hawaii, then presented more of it later in the movie The Hawaiians?
wanna bet there making a sequel ?
I didn’t realize it at first and it took me a bit to notice the trailers show only the kids:smack: There’s so much material and necessary character development that I think it’s the best way to handle it.
Anyone care to speculate who they might cast as the adults? I could see Jim Parsons as Bill or even Stan if that character hadn’t died before the adult adventure began.
I’ve been watching YouTube reviews like crazy - jeez, some people really should not turn a camera and microphone on themselves- and I’ve heard nothing but rave reviews about the young cast.
Well, it’s nice to hear that at least one King adaptation didn’t forget the face of his father (and by “forget”, I mean “shit on”) .
Not only that, but Papa himself has also highly praised it. I don’t recall if I’ve ever heard what Mr. King thinks of the 1990 TV adaptation but I find it hard to believe it resembles his vision very closely.
Stephen King commented on the miniseries in a 2015 interview, and was appreciative of it: “You have to remember, my expectations were in the basement. Here was a book that sprawled over 1,000 pages, and they were going to cram it into four hours, with commercials. But the series really surprised me by how good it was. It’s a really ambitious adaptation of a really long book.”
The way they have split these two movies makes a lot of sense to me. If they were to do the interwoven story as in the book, movie #1 would have ended at an unsatisfactory point, saving both resolutions for the 2nd movie. Plus, since they don’t seem to be shooting both movies at once, the kids would have noticeably grown in the 2nd movie.
I read somewhere that after all is said and done, they’re considering a video release that cuts both films together. After all, someone’s gonna do it, so why not charge for it.
Didn’t SK have good things to say about Under the Dome as well? I love SK’s books, but I don’t recall him ever saying a bad word about any adaptation.
Of course, you bet your fern, I’m still going to see IT. With my teen daughter who absolutely hates clowns! I watched two of those Divergent movies with her, she owes me.
I don’t think he liked Kubrick’s take on The Shining. But other than that, I don’t recall hearing of him disliking anything else. I would imagine he’s just taking money out of his own pocket if he comes out against any particular production.
Yeah, SK is the mirror universe Alan Moore, King will allow any adaptation of his works. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing either. I liked the TV mini-series IT and most of the movies made from his books have been good. Of course the clunkers, really clunked.
The only other movie adaptation of his that I recall him publicly disliking was Maximum Overdrive. Which was also the only movie King ever personally directed.
Husband has been working at thisIT-themed attraction on Hollywood and Vine. He says it’s tons of fun. If you’re local, and don’t mind a LONG wait in line, it’s open thru the 10th.
Originally posted by Miller:
I believe King was also fairly critical of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining as it diverged quite a bit from the book. I’ve read he has warmed up to it a little in recent years, even if you don’t like how it is different from the book, you have to admit the visuals, camera work, and aesthetics are quite amazing.
If this news is true and there will be more movies I am actually quite elated because multiple movies is really the only way to cover the expansive story of the book, all the little stories-within-stories. I was always freaked out by the I think its Eddie’s encounter with the Leper and then going into the house with the others, which from the previews the movie seems to cover. Also I hope they show something about when It appears as a pterodactyl that was a truly terrifying part of the book.
There is so much material they could show the fire at the black night club, where Dick Hallorann, the black cook from the Shining makes a cameo, the weird Solipsist kid that murdered his baby brother and had his head torn off I believe by It in the junkyard, the lumberjack in the 1800’s going on the killing spree, ritual of chüd, the realization that It is millions of years old and possibly of alien origin, I know they can’t possibly cover all the material but it would be cool if they at least made allusions to a lot of it.
I would so love to do that! It would be worth the nightmares! Niebolt Street is some of the scariest stuff in the book. I’d have to bind and gag my wife and daughter to get them there, and it would scar my daughter for life. She really, really does not like clowns.
It’s awesome. People are put into groups of 7-ish and are lead around by a “Georgie” in jeans and rain boots and a yellow rainslicker, who stays in character the whole time as they lead the group through. Husband is being a Georgie, and he’s having a blast. It’s not his kind of movie, but he’s considering going to see it anyway. I might join him - I liked the book a lot, but I’m not a fan of horror movies, so it’s debatable.
I drove by that this past weekend on my way to see Close Encounters. I damn near hit the car in front of my because it so fully grabbed my attention.
I thought I might go stand in line to get in after the movie, and in fact the line wasn’t that long. But it was a hundred degrees out and there was no shade. Being that I am neither a fan of dehydration nor heat stroke, I said ‘nope’.
Yes, I recall reading that somewhere recently.
No, he still pretty much hates it:
“The book is hot, and the movie is cold; the book ends in fire, and the movie in ice. In the book, there’s an actual arc where you see this guy, Jack Torrance, trying to be good, and little by little he moves over to this place where he’s crazy. And as far as I was concerned, when I saw the movie, Jack was crazy from the first scene. I had to keep my mouth shut at the time. It was a screening, and Nicholson was there. But I’m thinking to myself the minute he’s on the screen, ‘Oh, I know this guy. I’ve seen him in five motorcycle movies, where Jack Nicholson played the same part.’ And it’s so misogynistic. I mean, Wendy Torrance is just presented as this sort of screaming dishrag. But that’s just me, that’s the way I am.”
It’s only going to be two movies - once for them as kids, once as adults. That’s not a lot more footage than was in the TV miniseries, so I wouldn’t expect to see a ton more of these scenes make the movie. Not without cutting something that made it into the miniseries, at any rate.
I hope they find a way to work in Christine picking up Butch Bowers.
The weird solipsist kid was Patrick Hocksteter, yeah, his creepy ass needs to be there but not the circle-jerk. :eek:
He’s in the trailers at least. And if we leave out the circle jerk (which I am a-ok with), do we do away with the fart lighting?