Why?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — It
diddiexx — 9 years ago(February 13, 2017 02:45 PM)
Why would they do a remake of a really good film when it's not really needed in my opinion?
Just to milk the money ? Even the producer I don't like, since "Mama" was really dumb. -
jpowers4667 — 9 years ago(February 13, 2017 03:13 PM)
A) not a remake. The "original" was an adaptation in TV miniseries form. This is the FIRST and ONLY legitimate film adaptation based on the novel.
B) the miniseries was not that good, and whether you believe it or not, it hasn't aged well. -
jbaker1-2 — 3 years ago(December 12, 2022 04:44 AM)
The miniseries wasn't that good, that's true, but it was probably the best they could do at the time. It isn't as though you could show 12-year-old kids saying "", "piss" and "" on prime-time TV. In those days, that would have been a stretch even for cable. And let's not even get into the violence…
Muschietti's abomination, on the other hand, is a travesty. It's almost as though he didn't even read the book.
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it. -
-
agusmaga93 — 9 years ago(February 13, 2017 06:01 PM)
"Not really needed"? It IS needed, as the miniseries, which is overrated, doesn't make the novel justice, and we fans of the book NEED a faithful adaptation. So yes, this new adaptation (not remake) is indeed needed.
-
TheRealRandyWatson — 9 years ago(February 14, 2017 01:13 AM)
Not to play devil's advocate or anything but how faithful will this version actually be? From what we've heard so far they have changed even more stuff than the 1990 mini-series
My father was a drunk, a gambler and a womanizer. I idolized him -
jbaker1-2 — 7 years ago(January 29, 2019 10:34 AM)
Two years down the road, that question has been answered: less faithful to the novel by far than the 1990 miniseries and every bit as overrated. The 2017 version is a great
looking
movie, and it's reasonably good in all technical aspects (acting, direction, FX, etc.), but as far as doing actual justice to the source material, it's an even bigger failure than the TV version.
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it. -
cjbark-34442 — 9 years ago(February 14, 2017 04:39 AM)
To be honest, the mini-series did scare the hell out some of us all through our childhood - more than any other film (for some). - At least it does deserve some merit at least.
"That's it. It bit into his arm-pit. Like It wanted to eat him, man. Like It wanted to eat his heart." -
jbaker1-2 — 6 years ago(June 10, 2019 06:07 PM)
only people who didn't read the book think the tv mini series is amazing
That could also be truthfully said about the 2017 version.
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it. -
SloppyJ30 — 9 years ago(February 14, 2017 11:04 AM)
Explain when any movie is "needed." It's a great, sprawling story. Someone thought they could make a modern version leaning more towards the book. The end. What's not to get?
I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.
-
thething42011 — 9 years ago(February 14, 2017 10:02 PM)
- Because of brand recognition.
- Enough time has passed
- The original TV movie is a mixed bag. You got the masterful Tim Curry and some okay child actorsthen you have that second half of the movie, which is full of crap.
I'm cautiously optimistic about this new adaption. Even if it's a turd, I still want to see what they do with the property. There are few scenes that I know will be in this new movie that were missing from the 90s film version and were very crucial to understanding Pennywise's powers over the children. I'm very curious, especially since I just heard they confirmed the movie will get an R rating. That would be encouraging.
-
danrylee — 9 years ago(February 15, 2017 05:31 AM)
I love these responses. Because they're beep correct. Apart from Tim Curry, the miniseries was a bag of hot garbage. The child actors did the best they could, but you can't expect kids to polish a turd of a script like that. And let's face it: THE ADULTS WERE PHONING IT IN.
It was a miscast, poorly written, poorly directed mess. And of course it scared me as a kid. So did the idiotic slasher film Jack Frost. It's just not as cool to talk about beep films like that one, because Tim Curry didn't play the murderous snowman.
Am I saying this adaptation will be great? Of course not, but it deserves a shot. And I honestly believe that it'll probably be better than the miniseries.
Rant over. -
jbaker1-2 — 3 years ago(December 12, 2022 04:48 AM)
And I honestly believe that it'll probably be better than the miniseries.
It wasn't.
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it. -
jbaker1-2 — 3 years ago(January 09, 2023 08:10 AM)
Agreed. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that any Stephen King adaptation not directed by Frank Darabont is probably not going to be worth watching.
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it.