MovieChat Forums > IT (2017) Discussion > Am very curious to know why fan's idea w...

Am very curious to know why fan's idea wasnt used....

posted 8 years ago by williamdbibb
15 replies | jump to latest

I am the first to say, unlike 90% of remakes which are always worse than the original (except IMO Freaky Friday which was only film better than the original). Majority of those remakes are typically horror movies. It escapes me why producers want to continually remake a horror movie, solely based on wanting to revamp updates to make it more fitting for the technology we have nowadays. Not even focusing on the fact that, its a horror film, if you saw the original you know what happens and it cuts down on the scare factor. The movie is usually ruined by CGI effects (POLTERGEIST), which hinders certain movies.

Anyway my point is, IT is one of the few movies I think is a terrific idea to remake b/c for one, the book had so much not shown in the TV movie that a remake wont water it down. Plus, the budget is bigger and it is released in theaters, and BEST OF ALL ...NO sitcom actors to fill every role.

My subject topic is referring to a fan idea I read about where they were wanting the child actors from the original film return to play the adult roles. I thought that was a terrific idea, plus it kind of shows the producers tipping their hat to the original actors showing their appreciation. The only thing I saw about that idea was having to recast Jonathan Brandis which is not really an issue.

Does anyone know if this was an idea considered, or just a rumor? This is NOT a very well-known cast and if anything having original actors would enhance its integrity of representing the movie as best they could.

[–] jacobs_cabin23 8 years ago

I know that at least the actor who played Henry Bowers really wants to reprise the role. So far as this being considered or not, nothing is known. I highly doubt a big studio like New Line with Warner Brothers behind them wouldn't be snagging at least one A-lister with a couple of other genre favorites. Best case scenario, Part One is stellar and a huge critical and box office hit, allowing them to cast a couple of all-stars. I don't know though. There are no whisperings as of yet in terms of who will play the adult losers.

[–] williamdbibb 8 years ago

Part 1 is already wrapped up with the shooting of the film. So the credited cast are the ones in the film, no new addition, at least on the first one. I dont know any of these actors except for Pennywise who is a Swedish descent from the family with Eric from True Blood. He doesnt seem as close in resemblance as Stellan and Alexander do.

[–] kokane7 8 years ago

1. This is not a remake. This is a re-adaptation of the source material.

2. The whole miniseries child actors thing was just thought of by a fan that people that was a good idea. I, personally don't think it is. We need a fresh cast to play the adult version, not child
actors that hasn't worked in a while. Half of them probably don't have that acting ability anymore. Not tryna say don't but it could be. That's why at least have actors who we know that GOT it. Besides, majority of them wouldn't even look like the actors in this one. Moral point when you cast child/adult versions of one another is to at least make me believe they're the same. It'll be a distraction and hokey. This film needs to have no connection with the miniseries. Now, I wouldn't mind having a pop up cameo from one of them but that's it.

[–] Harry_Roat_Jr 8 years ago

Jonathan Brandis is dead, and aide from Seth Green and Emily Perkins, they haven't worked in years. Maybe it's because at least some of them decided they didn't want to be actors and quit- not every actor who fades away does so because they can't get roles. Emily is cute, but not the stunning beauty Beverly is described as, and Seth looks nothing like Finn.

And when it comes to new adaptations- I am in favor of new versions cutting all ties to other versions and sticking with the source material. If more movies did that, "Romantic, sexy Dracula" would not be a thing at all. A few winks are OK, but no more.

[–] TheRealRandyWatson 8 years ago

It was just some dumb fans who wanted that, so no it wasn't a rumor or something that was really considered. And thank god for that, cause it truly was an horrible idea.

My father was a drunk, a gambler and a womanizer. I idolized him

[–] CaptainCab 8 years ago

I hope they don't consider this silly idea. Most of them haven't even acted since.

[–] GuyNCognito 8 years ago

Why Why WHY do people keep bringing this up?! A majority of those kids were horrible actors! Why would this film want to tip it's hat to that movie? Why? This film is based on a book, not a tv miniseries. Holy crap humanity.

Grant discovered raptor eggs in Jurassic Park

[–] williamdbibb 8 years ago

Dude seriously, take a f-ing chill pill. If you get THIS bent out of shape over a harmless msg board posting u have serious issues and shouldn't be on msg boards. Dude u would have thought I broke into your house or something with that reaction you gave me.

[–] patrickBOOTH 8 years ago

Make the argument that Grant didn't discover raptor eggs in Jurassic Park. It'll be a hoot, I promise.

[–] TheRealRandyWatson 8 years ago

Thing is, Grant did discover raptor eggs in Jurassic Park ☺

My father was a drunk, a gambler and a womanizer. I idolized him

[–] GuyNCognito 8 years ago

Yessir. And hilarity to Patrick is, I guess, being proven wrong over and over. He may think that he made me angry or something, a goal only trolls wish to accomplish, but instead, he had no way of disproving that Grant DID NOT find raptor eggs while I was able to provide evidence that he did. But THAT's another story.

And yes. It is annoying to read over and over again the most stupid and unoriginal ideas. It makes me so happy that some of these posters have no involvement in entertainment...

Grant discovered raptor eggs in Jurassic Park

[–] williamdbibb 8 years ago

And for the record you didn't even read and comprehend what I initially said in my post...

"Anyway my point is, IT is one of the few movies I think is a terrific idea to remake b/c for one, the book had so much not shown in the TV movie that a remake wont water it down."

I read the book which is why it was a good idea to revamp it, oh lord I( don't want to recap what my original post said if you can't comprehend the whole thing)

[–] TheRealRandyWatson 8 years ago

It really is a stupid idea so I kinda understand his frustration that someone brought it up again. It has been discussed several times before.

It was a stupid idea the first time it was mentioned and it is a stupid idea now.

My father was a drunk, a gambler and a womanizer. I idolized him

[–] Prof_Gotham 8 years ago

I have to agree with most of the people posting here; it would be a nice idea, and hopefully some of the original cast will have cameos as a bit of fan service, but I can't see the studio going with that.

They're probably going to want fairly well-known actors for the adult roles and as a few people have pointed out, most of the original cast haven't worked in years. And let's face it, at this point, Seth Green is probably best known for his voiceover work.

[–] jenshughes 8 years ago

1) There is no reason for them to pay homage to the mini-series when this film has no association with it. Not only that, these actors' talent and/or physical appearances probably don't fit the director's vision. People that have never seen the mini-series would wonder why the adult versions look nothing like the younger versions, and everyone will wonder why they adults are portrayed by lesser actors than most major motion pictures.

2) Even though It is not a remake, there are many remakes that are better than the original. You've probably seen them and didn't realize that it was a remake. Last of the Mohicans was a remake for example.

3) CGI only ruins things when it's bad. Bad practical effects can have the same negative effect. Nobody complained about Mad Max, and that movie was filled with CGI.