WTF you're kind of, like, not understanding what I'm saying. "The Shining" and "Shawshank Redemption" and "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" were good movies that played loose with their source material, but they still stayed true to its overall spirit in all kinds of vital ways like good casting of the main characters, and accurate setting.
And Stalker, Death in Venice, Solaris, 2001: A Space Odyssey etc. all played far looser with their source material and are all the better for it. There are no rules, fine if you want to apply arbitrary frameworks to what constitutes right and wrong in adaptations but spare us your condescension if you do.
In contrast, everything about "It 2017" is weird from the word go: a stupidly miscast and badly-designed Pennywise, WTF-inducingly bad casting of the kids which I've already flatulated about ad nauseum, it taking place in the 80s, it's barely even the same story.
There are so many assumptions in this that I don't even know where to begin. How do you think Stephen King fans reacted to the casting of Red in Shawshank before the film came out? I imagine with the same incredulity you have to Bev's short hair.
The 80s period change is fairly irrelevant and I'll tell you why. Reagen's entire presidency was about returning America to the golden ages of the 50s after stagflation/ strife in the 70s. King undermined this by framing the 50s as a racist, sexist, backward time which for all its economic growth was far more barbaric than life was in the 80s. When people think of the golden ages of American growth, they think of the 50s followed by the 80s. Yet the 80s was also built on fragile ground (de-reg of finance industry, widening inequality etc.) which we are still feeling the effects of today. In a way, its not a dissimilar parallel to now (i.e the 40s to the 70s would be totally inappropriate).
What's more important about another "It" adaptation is that it's a somewhat more influential book than any of the examples I provided. It's King's "Lord of the Rings," a true modern-day classic that has resonated across eras and cultures, and for Hollywood to use it to crap out yet another cash-grab pile of trendy diaper sauce is just plain retarded.
Lord of the Rings and IT are popular books but both of them have massive problems (LotR is mind-numblingly boring in places, IT has a dreadful ending) and neither are masterpieces. In fact Jackson sticking so rigidly to the end of the LotR made the last film pretty unbearable - that leaving scene dragged on and on and on
So we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't mind the novel being changed because it needs it to be frank.
I don't understand how you don't get this. You and all these defenders here seem to want to furiously masturbate over every last detail about this production... Why? Is that one of the side-effects of crack?
No-one here knows what the film will be like, but its best to be optimistic. What on earth is the point is railing on a film you've never seen, do you expect to wake us from a stupor we've apparently been living in? I must say, you're doing a dreadful job of it if this is the case.
*puts fingers to temples* what... Film is a different medium than text... fckn DUH! But making a film that tells the same story as the book... This is "being a slave" to it?
Another assumption: the film has to tell the same story as the book. You cited the Shining earlier, the story is completely different to the book - only location, era and characters are the same.
I can't fathom the level of ignorance you're coming from here... People like a book because they like the story... So the story is the whole reason most people would want to see a movie adaptation... Yes of course there are certain changes that must be made due to limitations like movie length, budget, certain nuances like the way a character is feeling... But that's forgivable as long as the filmmakers really try to turn the book into an experience. If the "the Shining" TV series was bad, it's because it was poorly made, not because it was accurate
Assumption: people like books because they like the story. Well this is clearly wrong given how many famous books have no story (Waiting for Godot, To The Lighthouse) but that's another discussion
I like IT not because I think the narrative is compelling but because of it's themes - the split between adulthood/ childhood, loss of innocence, the problem of evil, the barbarous history of small town America, etc. These themes can be set in any era, they are universals, I'm not one to get bogged down on particulars. These themes are set within a story, and from what we can ascertain, which is
very little (but you all the seeing eye know it all), the story is fundamentally the same bar era change. It is a still about a club of kids confronting a supernatural/ alien/ evil force in a town.
It's inappropriate to have the movie's official Instagram page be a sht-ton of stalkerish pics of Finn, including ones with hearts Photoshopped all over his face and sht. It lets us all know that this production is all about whatever bullsht social hierarchy is going on over there rather than the movie itself.
For the last time, it's not the film's official Instagram page. IT doesn't have an official instagram page yet. You clearly don't understand how Instagram works so to help you here is an explanation of hash-tagging:
https://help.instagram.com/351460621611097It's like movies are mutating into a form of superficial networking instead of about, uh, telling stories that inspire and exalt the human spirit.
So much nonsense in here it's hard to know where to begin. What hard evidence do you have for any of these assumptions bar browsing IMDB?
reply
share
Pozdnyshev
8 years ago
powellajb wrote:
farrrrrrrrrrt fart fart farrrrrrrt BLAST boarnt blapfft HONK squeak DA MOVIE DOESN'T NEED TO BE LIKE THE BOOK explosive defecation
I like farts. 😄💨
reply
share