MovieChat Forums > IT (2017) Discussion > Could they do classic monsters and they ...

Could they do classic monsters and they still be scary?

posted 8 years ago by dylanmccormick520
8 replies | jump to latest

Everyone is saying that the times when werewolfs and Mummies and and Frankenstein were scary is gone. They aren't scary anymore according to people. I think that, if done correctly and done good... they could be scary. Maybe this isn't the best example but the Goosebumps movie with Jack Black had a Werewolf in it and while I never had nightmares after seeing it, it was a good werewolf. I feel like this movie could have Mummies and Werewolfs and Frankenstein and it still me taken seriously. Mummies could still be scary, so could Frankenstein. But this raises a question.... Would the monsters need to be given different physical looks to be scary ? Yes and No.
I feel like the " I was a Teenage Werewolf could be changed a bit. Still make it a werewolf standing on 2 legs but use a mix of Practical Effects and touch up with CGI. Don't just use a man in a suit, add some extra funk to give it that horror vibe but make it good. I know this won't happen in the movie but I think the classic monsters could be taken serious. What do you think ? Be honest

[–] stugood-07006 8 years ago

Werewolf in Gingersnaps, American Werewolf in London and even in It (miniseries), scary.

Mummie in It (miniseries), scary.

Never really found vampires very scary, although the bald classic incarnation is rather creepy.

Generally, I think.CGI sucks. The trick is in the eyes and movement to act animalistic or something altogether detatched.

I don't think this adaption uses these classic monsters, which kind of misses the point of King's novel perhaps.

https://junkieintheattic.wordpress.com

[–] DarklordRB 8 years ago

The vampire form could be scary as a Reaper. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5fW3RYu5iyE

[–] laeyisoracle 8 years ago

The thing is, in the original, all those things were supposed to be scary to the KIDS. Only certain actions and descriptions about them made then disturbing in a broad sense. The Teenage Werewolf transformation is kinda a silly visualization, with its lettermen jacket and slicked back hair, but what it does, how it tries to slash out Ben's guts, that's frightening. The Creature from the Black Lagoon is another example of this. The Creature, I always thought, looked goofy as hell. My dad told me, as a kid during the 50s, he was actually terrified of it. But the thing is, when it kills Eddie Corcoran and the description of that horrific act, THAT is scary regardless of look of the monster.

It is one of those things where you have to think outside of the box and not let "cynical adulthood" dictate your opinion. I said this in another thread, one of the points It chose children as its main source of food was because their fears and imaginations allowed It to get the MOST out of them. Buck-toothed Pennywise aside, this is my biggest fear regarding this movie, that they are trying to ground the monsters/horror/story of It. In a ways, that goes against what It stood for. The boundless imagination of children, the fears that come with it and a wellspring so rich that It could pull a number of strange fears out to season its victims before the kill.

[–] DoubleDareYa 8 years ago

this is my biggest fear regarding this movie, that they are trying to ground the monsters/horror/story of It. In a ways, that goes against what It stood for. The boundless imagination of children, the fears that come with it and a wellspring so rich that It could pull a number of strange fears out to season its victims before the kill.

I disagree actually. I think personalized 'grounded' fears not only make the characters more relatable, but also make IT seem more merciless and mean-spirited.

You talk about the boundless imagination of children, but for outcast kids, their deepest fears should be far more private and personal in nature.

[–] laeyisoracle 8 years ago

You talk about the boundless imagination of children, but for outcast kids, their deepest fears should be far more private and personal in nature.

Then are you saying King wrote the Losers wrong? They were not portrayed far off from normal kids. Given horrible situations to live through, sure, but they weren't far off "normal" than any other kid. That was probably the point, that a lot of so-called "losers", nerds, outcasts shunned from society aren't really that different. They don't come from another planet. They have the same fears as "normal" people, and find enjoyment in similar things as everybody else. But sometimes people are just picked on, ostracized regardless. For all the crap the Losers had to deal with(with Bowers' Gang and home life), they still had a LOT of tender moments between the lot of them, and for the most part, acted like kids act, talking movies, sports, television, playing and such, all with the excitement that comes with childhood.

Though in the end, it all comes down to personal preference. If someone never had a childhood like that, they can't relate, but everybody has different childhoods, different life experiences. Some grow up to be more cynical that others, others don't.

[–] MovieCommentSi 8 years ago

Seeing as the time frame is set in the 80s and as an 80s kid myself I didn't find the Hammer Horror films iconic characters scary...even Monster Squad didn't convince me! If they are going to use any horror icons how bout a Freddy or Jason or Chucky? Or maybe something from a classic film such as The Shining? I liked a previous suggestion by someone about Judith maybe being Ritchie's interpretation of the woman in the bath in Kubricks film?

Despite suggesting the classic 80s monsters I can't see it happening. What I can see is Pennywise playing more on early teen social concerns/questions. Like them finding their early sexual awakening. Is Judith a playboy centrefold that Richie finds attractive and then becomes an old crone like in the Tracker brothers office?

Does Ben need a mummy when his two biggest concerns as a kid is his non existent father figure and his weight. Will his monster be an imagining of his father (like the mini series version) or maybe some sort of mass consuming blob?

Bill well is a given that it's Georgie so no need for a classic character, Stan they can finally do the dead kids, Bev can draw her father/blood in the pipes, Eddie we know gets the leper and Mike I wonder if they might expand on his dogs death with some sort of King/Cujo link?

[–] DarklordRB 8 years ago

I think Pennywise takes on the forms of classic monsters, and augments them to look more dreadful then how they originally looked. It's like how the Entity from Wes Craven's New Nightmare took on Freddy Krueger's form only to augment it to make it more darker and evil.

[–] bossdog677 8 years ago

Obviously they need the Freddy,Michael and Jason crowd in this one which won't happen