And that bothers me greatly. I suppose it all depends on how the Pennywise vs Georgie encounter plays out: will it be creepy, scary, or just plain bombastic with Pennywise having a booming voice?
If it does work out, then Tim Curry's classic performance will be cheapened and the whole 1990 adaptation will not be seen in a positive light ever again.
And it IS at the moment.
Why are you here if you haven't seen the movie yet?
Have you actually watched the 90s TV miniseries lately or are you going off of vague memories about a child eating clown?
Part 1 was ok. Part 2 was ass. Tim Curry was good when his voice wasn't ragged and his eyes blood shot.
foebane look past childhood nostalgia? You are asking too much of him, sir.
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf
I know you've got me on Ignore, Raptor, and I frankly don't know why, but I would like to give this second adaptation a try, if you must know. If I like it, I will reappraise my views accordingly. But the 2017 Pennywise looks odd, and some of the new child cast are rather off. I particularly don't like the look of my favourite character, Eddie Kaspbrak.
Why are you here if you haven't seen the movie yet?
Saw it just the other day, it holds up as strongly as ever, until the spider, of course.
Why are you here if you haven't seen the movie yet?
So, it bothers you that this adaptation is likely to beat the first one?
To tell you the truth, I never liked the miniseries. It was too cheesy, even for a 1990 TV production. Tim Curry's acting is the only good thing about it, but also overrated. People talk about it as if it were Oscar-worthy, when it's just okay. The kids were quite good as well.
I watched it right after reading the novel. What a dissapointment, especially the 2nd episode, which was pathetic.
I hope the fim will beat it and do the novel justice.
I like the 1990 child cast, and Tim Curry may be rather on the slapstick side of Pennywise, but he's still scary in places.
And I've recently started re-reading the book for the second time. I have to admit, I found it powerful and scary the first time, but that was around 2000.
Why are you here if you haven't seen the movie yet?
If it does work out, then Tim Curry's classic performance will be cheapened and the whole 1990 adaptation will not be seen in a positive light ever again.
Was Nicholson's Joker cheapened by Ledger's? Or do they easily co-exist, two different but great takes on a clasic character?
My father was a drunk, a gambler and a womanizer. I idolized him
[deleted]
Well, maybe we should focus on the things we do agree on then ☺
My father was a drunk, a gambler and a womanizer. I idolized him
[deleted]