Video: Are we ready for "IT"

[MichaelWinicki]

He did a good job.
Rob Lowe did good IMO
Tom Cullen spells M O O N character was good.

But it was not so much the characters as it just seemed too andy griffith instead of sons of anarchy.

Needed to be grittier and darker IMO.

The same could be said about the TV version of "It".

"Salem's Lot" was the opposite of both "It" and "The Stand"... It was far more dark.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

The same could be said about the TV version of "It".

"Salem's Lot" was the opposite of both "It" and "The Stand"... It was far more dark.

Agreed on it as far as the adults part go...the adults part to me was very weak...I still liked the kids part because it captured that pretty good.

Now take Dreamcatcher....it focused on the adults part of the story and frankly completely botched the kids part of it and it sucked because of it.

Salems lot at the time....the whole let me in scene as a kid was the scariest thing I had seen at that time. I remember as a kid quietly and frantically saying...No NO NO under my breath.

But I bet it we watched it now it probably would not hold up well.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Agreed on it as far as the adults part go...the adults part to me was very weak...I still liked the kids part because it captured that pretty good.

Now take Dreamcatcher....it focused on the adults part of the story and frankly completely botched the kids part of it and it sucked because of it.

Salems lot at the time....the whole let me in scene as a kid was the scariest thing I had seen at that time. I remember as a kid quietly and frantically saying...No NO NO under my breath.

But I bet it we watched it now it probably would not hold up well.

I did watch "Salem's Lot" not long ago (forgot what it was on)... It was still a decent watch... Outside of the 70's haircuts.

 

[Teren_Kanan]

Give me a "Stranger Things" style version of The Stand.

Would be absolutely amazing. You could even make it into a multiple season show, there is enough Material. Could have 3 Season "Captain Trips" "On the Boarder" and "The Stand".
Thinking about it makes me drool. Maybe tweak the ending though. Was the weakest part of the Stand.

Mini Series/TV shows in general are just a much greater way to do a solid book.

 

[darthseinfeld]

Give me a "Stranger Things" style version of The Stand.

Would be absolutely amazing. You could even make it into a multiple season show, there is enough Material. Could have 3 Season "Captain Trips" "On the Boarder" and "The Stand".
Thinking about it makes me drool. Maybe tweak the ending though. Was the weakest part of the Stand.

Mini Series/TV shows in general are just a much greater way to do a solid book.

I think that is the intention with the Stand. I think is/was supposed to be a 7 parter. Last I heard they were going with that over feature films

 

[darthseinfeld]

Give me a "Stranger Things" style version of The Stand.

Would be absolutely amazing. You could even make it into a multiple season show, there is enough Material. Could have 3 Season "Captain Trips" "On the Boarder" and "The Stand".
Thinking about it makes me drool. Maybe tweak the ending though. Was the weakest part of the Stand.

Mini Series/TV shows in general are just a much greater way to do a solid book.

The TV medium today is so much stronger then it was when they made The Stand and It. Streaming means it can be alot more profitable

 

[viman96]

In a nutshell...

It's about an ancient evil entity that ends up on earth millions of years ago.

The entity "wakes-up" every 30 years or so (usually on the heels of something "ugly" that happens within the community.

The entity then kills a certain number of children and once satisfied, goes back to sleep.

The entity can manifest itself into any shape it wants, with the clown being most prominent.

Why a clown?

The entity loves playing on the fear of children, and a clown allows the entity to get close to the child before murdering them.

While all this goes on every 30 years, the adults in the community kind of have a ho-hum attitude about it all, thus the pursuit of the entity never happens.

That is until a group of children nick-named "The losers club" realize what's going on and become a legitimate threat vs. the entity.

There's more to the story, but that's the basis.

hmm very interesting! Think I will buy the book

 

[blindzebra]

A King adaptation not mentioned yet, Needful Things, was good. Misery was very good, as was Shawshank, Green Mile, and Stand by Me. Just below those 3 would be Carrie, The Mist, and Maximum Overdrive.

I personally hated The Shining. Nickelson was a bad choice for Jack Torrence. The first time he grinned in the interview you knew he'd be taking an ax to somebody. The part needed to have a Donny Osmond to Charles Manson transformation, not a Ted Bundy to Charles Manson which is what we got.

 

[Teren_Kanan]

A King adaptation not mentioned yet, Needful Things, was good. Misery was very good, as was Shawshank, Green Mile, and Stand by Me. Just below those 3 would be Carrie, The Mist, and Maximum Overdrive.

I personally hated The Shining. Nickelson was a bad choice for Jack Torrence. The first time he grinned in the interview you knew he'd be taking an ax to somebody. The part needed to have a Donny Osmond to Charles Manson transformation, not a Ted Bundy to Charles Manson which is what we got.

The Shining was not a great adaptation.

It was however, a fantastic movie.

 

[kimrose]

A King adaptation not mentioned yet, Needful Things, was good. Misery was very good, as was Shawshank, Green Mile, and Stand by Me. Just below those 3 would be Carrie, The Mist, and Maximum Overdrive.

I personally hated The Shining. Nickelson was a bad choice for Jack Torrence. The first time he grinned in the interview you knew he'd be taking an ax to somebody. The part needed to have a Donny Osmond to Charles Manson transformation, not a Ted Bundy to Charles Manson which is what we got.

I own the book of The Shining, it's one of my favorites.

I actually thought Nicholson was perfect for the movie role. That's the problem with the movie, they didn't dive deep enough into the characters to get a good understanding of who they actually were beforehand. See, in the book, they hit on the main characters in a lot more depth, delving into the family dynamics and history, as well as the personal thoughts of each. Danny was actually Jack's stepson, but by watching the movie you would hardly know that. Also, I know the movie briefly mentioned this, but if you coughed or blinked you missed it, but Jack also broke Danny's arm a year or so before the story takes place, because Danny messed up some papers in his office or something like that. Jack was an emotionally and physically abusive, hotheaded, mental case from the get go, lol, and even in the movie, it was obvious that Danny and Wendy were both terrified of him, even before he got the seasonal gig at the Stanley. Oh, and the reason he needed the job at the Stanley was because he lost his previous job, though I can't exactly how, but I think he was fired and had been out of work for some time. I think it had to do with his terrible love of hard liquor, he had a major drinking problem. I do wish the movie had gotten more into that, but I guess there just really wasn't time for it. Bummer. Some stuff that they left out of the movie I was glad about, like the topiary shrubs that moved around outside. That was a little over the top for my taste. lol


ETA: Not to stray off topic, I am very interested in the new IT movie. It has to be better than the tv version 30 years ago. LOL

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I own the book of The Shining, it's one of my favorites.

I actually thought Nicholson was perfect for the movie role. That's the problem with the movie, they didn't dive deep enough into the characters to get a good understanding of who they actually were beforehand. See, in the book, they hit on the main characters in a lot more depth, delving into the family dynamics and history, as well as the personal thoughts of each. Danny was actually Jack's stepson, but by watching the movie you would hardly know that. Also, I know the movie briefly mentioned this, but if you coughed or blinked you missed it, but Jack also broke Danny's arm a year or so before the story takes place, because Danny messed up some papers in his office or something like that. Jack was an emotionally and physically abusive, hotheaded, mental case from the get go, lol, and even in the movie, it was obvious that Danny and Wendy were both terrified of him, even before he got the seasonal gig at the Stanley. Oh, and the reason he needed the job at the Stanley was because he lost his previous job, though I can't exactly how, but I think he was fired and had been out of work for some time. I think it had to do with his terrible love of hard liquor, he had a major drinking problem. I do wish the movie had gotten more into that, but I guess there just really wasn't time for it. Bummer. Some stuff that they left out of the movie I was glad about, like the topiary shrubs that moved around outside. That was a little over the top for my taste. lol


ETA: Not to stray off topic, I am very interested in the new IT movie. It has to be better than the tv version 30 years ago. LOL

The movie "Jack" was evil waiting to be unleashed.

The book & TV movie "Jack" was inherently good who lost his way, but found his path at the very end.

The movie "Jack" probably didn't need much more in the way of description.

NOW the movie "Wendy"... Yeah, I would have like to have more and supposedly there was more that did not make the final cut.

 

[Teren_Kanan]

Saw IT.

Liked IT.

I really just wish there had been more character/bond development amongst the losers. Some of the characters were drastically under developed. The Original TV mini series did a much better job at it imo. Even Henry bowers was more fleshed out in the mini series.

The cinematography and IT himself were light years better though. Overall a very enjoyable monster flick. Hope the Adult half isn't as horrible as the mini series Adult parts.

How awesome would it be if Seth Green could play Adult Richie.

 

[kimrose]

The movie "Jack" was evil waiting to be unleashed.

The book & TV movie "Jack" was inherently good who lost his way, but found his path at the very end.

The movie "Jack" probably didn't need much more in the way of description.

NOW the movie "Wendy"... Yeah, I would have like to have more and supposedly there was more that did not make the final cut.

I guess this is where men and women differ, Michael. lol. I saw the book and the movie "Jack" as a bonified Jack^^^, lol, with a nasty attitude (although very fake nice to the powers that be, because he really needed the job), a horrible abusive nature to those dependent on him, and helpless against the demons at the bottom of the bottle to fuel his anger issues. All of that really showed his incompetence as a man, which is why he lost his previous job, and why he ended up freezing to death in the end, because all of his insane and hateful demons came out in that very haunted hotel. And when he tried to murder his wife and stepson in his fit of rage-fueled demonic possession, they prevailed and got the better of him and his overall stupidity. LOL. Perspectives.

Hey, I just remembered something else from the book that was not in the movie. Jack recalled a memory of a family dinner, where his father punched the crap out of his mother right there at the dinner table. So it was obviously learned behavior on the abuse part, even though he hated his abusive father. Man, that book was so good, I think I will read it again, as soon as I finish the book I am currently reading. Thanks for the great conversation, my friend.

 

[SlammedZero]

Just got back. Loved IT. I thought they did an incredible job. I cannot wait until the second half.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I guess this is where men and women differ, Michael. lol. I saw the book and the movie "Jack" as a bonified Jack^^^, lol, with a nasty attitude (although very fake nice to the powers that be, because he really needed the job), a horrible abusive nature to those dependent on him, and helpless against the demons at the bottom of the bottle to fuel his anger issues. All of that really showed his incompetence as a man, which is why he lost his previous job, and why he ended up freezing to death in the end, because all of his insane and hateful demons came out in that very haunted hotel. And when he tried to murder his wife and stepson in his fit of rage-fueled demonic possession, they prevailed and got the better of him and his overall stupidity. LOL. Perspectives.

Hey, I just remembered something else from the book that was not in the movie. Jack recalled a memory of a family dinner, where his father punched the crap out of his mother right there at the dinner table. So it was obviously learned behavior on the abuse part, even though he hated his abusive father. Man, that book was so good, I think I will read it again, as soon as I finish the book I am currently reading. Thanks for the great conversation, my friend.

You're welcome!

Yeah the two "Jacks" are very much different.

The one thing that "told" me everything about the movie Jack was the picture at the end with him at the 4th of July party in what was it? 1922. The whole thing was predestined.

Now we came close to having a slightly different ending in the movie. The original ending was still there– Jack freezing in the maze. But the manager of the Overlook visits Wendy in the hospital asking her how she's doing bla-bla, but then tells her they did not find Jack's body. There was a print out there with this ending.

 

[kimrose]

You're welcome!

Yeah the two "Jacks" are very much different.

The one thing that "told" me everything about the movie Jack was the picture at the end with him at the 4th of July party in what was it? 1922. The whole thing was predestined.

Now we came close to having a slightly different ending in the movie. The original ending was still there– Jack freezing in the maze. But the manager of the Overlook visits Wendy in the hospital asking her how she's doing bla-bla, but then tells her they did not find Jack's body. There was a print out there with this ending.

Yep. I much preferred the book ending. I loved Mr. Halloran and hated they killed him off in the movie. I think Scatman did a fantastic job as Mr. Halloran, and it was hard to see his character die. ... That picture of Jack among the 1922 hotel people was wild. That's something to think on, if you let yourself. A case of identical looks? Or reincarnation? Hhhmmm. What did Delbert Grady tell him in the bathroom that night? "You've always been the caretaker...."

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Yep. I much preferred the book ending. I loved Mr. Halloran and hated they killed him off in the movie. I think Scatman did a fantastic job as Mr. Halloran, and it was hard to see his character die. ... That picture of Jack among the 1922 hotel people was wild. That's something to think on, if you let yourself. A case of identical looks? Or reincarnation? Hhhmmm. What did Delbert Grady tell him in the bathroom that night? "You've always been the caretaker...."

It was preordained. Jack was coming back to the Overlook. And yeah, he's always been the caretaker. Where it gets murky is the Delbert Grady this... Is he Jack? Is Jack Delbert Grady. You would initially have to say "yes". But then was it Jack, as Delbert Grady letting himself out of the locked freezer? Or was Delbert Grady simply inhabited by the spirit of Jack when he murdered his family with the axe?

Lots of puzzles to the movie.

I think the book and the TV version of the book tied things up the loose ends. The movie version is full of loose ends which is one of the reasons I think that it's so highly thought of.

 

[kimrose]

It was preordained. Jack was coming back to the Overlook. And yeah, he's always been the caretaker. Where it gets murky is the Delbert Grady this... Is he Jack? Is Jack Delbert Grady. You would initially have to say "yes". But then was it Jack, as Delbert Grady letting himself out of the locked freezer? Or was Delbert Grady simply inhabited by the spirit of Jack when he murdered his family with the axe?

Lots of puzzles to the movie.

I think the book and the TV version of the book tied things up the loose ends. The movie version is full of loose ends which is one of the reasons I think that it's so highly thought of.

These are very deep questions, Michael. Very interesting. It is quite possible that yes, they are one in the same. They shared many thoughts. I couldn't watch the tv version, too cheesy. lol. Although I did hear that the writing was more in line with the book than the movie was, and I know King was on board with production and directing of the tv version. Maybe one day I will try to watch it.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

These are very deep questions, Michael. Very interesting. It is quite possible that yes, they are one in the same. They shared many thoughts. I couldn't watch the tv version, too cheesy. lol. Although I did hear that the writing was more in line with the book than the movie was, and I know King was on board with production and directing of the tv version. Maybe one day I will try to watch it.

I didn't think the TV version was bad... I thought the overall production values and acting were decent.

If anything I think you would enjoy it more than I did. Again, I've been "poisoned" by Kubrick's portrayal and S. King's version pales in comparison from my perspective. LOL!

 

[yimyammer]

anyone seen "it" yet?

if so, thoughts?