Stephen Kings IT Re-make

Re: Stephen Kings IT Re-make

That's an image that'll haunt me longer than Pennywise ever did.

This is my favourite King novel, but I really can't see a way to truly adapt it without getting Toei to handle the Gamera ending.

And therein lies the rub for me. The book is fantastic, and the ending is powerful and moving, but you just can't duplicate that in real life and convey the power of King's words and the emotions of the moment. It can't happen, especially if they resort to CGI creations for the Turtle and Pennywise's "true form". But they will, and I have a feeling it won't be good.

I don't think It really warrants a remake, but, if they make a longer more faithful adaptation, then go for it.

I'll be suprised if they include the Turtle in this version.

But, what I would really looooove to see is the many forms It takes from the novel:

Rodan/Giant Bird tormenting Mike

Creature from the Black lagoon type monster

Teenage Werewolf rising from the toilet

The Crawling Eye


Those would be magnificent screen moments.

I saw the mini series years ago but only read the book recently and was amazed at the cool stuff that was missing from the tv adaptation.

I wasn't surprised that they dropped the kids gang bang at the end though.

I think re-making It is a good idea, I've always found Tommy Wallace's very disappointing. Mainly because since I believe it had to air prime time, so they took away all the disturbing elements the book had and the end result was a lot less powerful than the novel...

Maybe they should come up with a brand new ending. I didn't like it in the novel and it definitely wouldn't work on film.

The "gangbang" in the novel is superfluous and could be lifted right out. I'm still not sure what King was thinking when he wrote that.

But the Ritual of Chud MUST show up. If for nothing else but to get the namesake up there.

I read the book so long ago many parts of it felt like a dream to me, like, I don't know if it's even in there or it was just my imagination.

That detail, Nordling has brought up, was one of 'em. Very strange scene.

Do you think that if they changed the ending to make it "better/spider free" (for lack of better words), that people would be up in arms and pissed?

Because, I, personally wouldn't care. I think that It's form at the end of the book is the weakest ending for a good body of a novel.

I'd be happy if they changed the ending. I was also disappointed in the spider and the turtle from the novel. I had also forgotten about the gang bang in the sewers.

I never really cared much for the TV mini-series. Seeing John Boy with a pony tail turned me off from the get go. I also didn't have John Ritter or Harry Anderson in mind while I was reading the book. Casting Tim Curry was excellent but that was about it. Maybe it's just that some things should not be made into a network show. Emily Perkins still looks young enough to play Bev as a twelve year old so maybe she can reprise her role.

Even though I'm a die-hard King's Fan (especially with the DT). I never read It, though I might to discover what references It has in connection to the Tower. But was there a different ending in the book than in the movie. I don't mind you guys spoiling it for me, so PLEASE TELL ME!!!!

..."gangbang"? don't remeber that...of course it has been ten years since i've read the book...

After the kids killed It the first time, they got lost in the sewers. All the guys took turns banging Bev Marsh and then she magically knew where to go after they all finished her off. I agree with Ryan on that one. Strange.

I read IT when I was about the age of the kids in that book. Must've been 12 or 13 when I got it (IT?) from the school library and read the whole thing in a little over a week. Still one of my favourite reading experiences ever, right up there with Barker's IMAJICA. The gangbang was indeed very weird and I really didn't know what to think about it back then. I realy wonder if there was any storm of controversy about when the novel first came out? I mean it's PEDOPHILIA!!! Heh, I bet there must've been angry Christians out on a mass pilgrimage to stone King's heathen pedo ass. Speaking of which, maybe Larry Clark should direct the remake? He knows his pedo stuff and after how well he handled genre material in TEENAGE CAVEMAN ... OK, OK, I'll stop now.

I watched the TV version only after finishing the book and found it rather disappointing. The clown was great alright but it just didn't have the magic of the novel in any way. Therefore I'm not opposed to a remake and as I've said in the SALEM'S LOT thread I think Peter Fillardi is a very talented writer/director and getting him to pen the script is definitely a step in the right direction. However, IT is no SALEM'S LOT. It's like 4 times the size of that novel and if WB really wants to do it right they should do it as a 4 or 6 part series and not try to once again squeeze the whole thing into 2-3 hours.

PS: I'm with Dan, they totally should get someone like Shosuke Kaneko (sp) to direct the giant spider stuff ... And dammit, I want the flash-back scene to prehistoric times when IT arrives on earth. That kicked ass.

PPS: Another King book that desperate needs to be remade is TOMMYKNOCKERS. Because the TV version of that one sucked maggot crotch. Richard Kelly of DONNIE DARKO fame even says on his DD commentary that it's his childhood dream to do that novel justice on film. I say give the man the chance!

totally agree with you on these points! they'd make it even creepier and more faithful to the book.

king's "it" is one of the few books i've ever read. the end form of the spider while kinda cool, imho could have been better. in the tv series, it was a total let down(execution).

i was thinking along the lines of the devil himself or a gross looking demon/monster thing for the "true form" of pennywise.

a shape shifting spider just really didn't make much sense to me.

It's been a llloooonnnggg time since I read it, but towards the end a giant Turtle of the cosmic variety makes an appearence, which would easily be one of the guardians of the beam. As far as other DT references go, I'm a blank for now. Check out The Stephen King Universe (it's a book) for an excellent look at what books fit into the DT world.

You are the best Johnny...that makes hella sense in a way. It saids in the book that the turtle was the strongest of the guardians and oldest, so maybe that would explain those scenes you guys mention about It coming to our world. WOw...awesome.
P.S. - Done with Volume 3 and I'm fucking piss it ended like dat.

Hey, if they remake IT, maybe Emily Perkins can play her adult self

The Spider was more of a symbolic thing, anyway. I remember really liking it in the book, but not knowing how they'd pull it off in the movie. But the whole psychic battle that Bill and It go through is pretty integral.

It seems to be pretty early in the project's development, but I'm not optimistic. Filardi's previous films do not inspire confidence, and I tend to believe that if anyone had turned out as many lukewarm adaptation of King's books as he himself has, that person wouldn't be given the time of day by horror fans.

That said, I'd be interested to know how long the adaptation will be. It the novel is both highly episodic and so crammed with small vignettes that add incrementally to the foreboding that the tension builds to a remarkable pitch; I think it would work well broken into 22-24 weekly installments like a regular series. Unfortunately, American networks still think that "miniseries" means two or three segments of two hours each less commercials (which mentality screws Steve up when he tries to write specifically for television, as ABC's handling of Kingdom Hospital demonstrates).

I never felt like the movie lived up to the novel at all. I think the movies PG rating had something to do with it, they cut out all the best parts. Where was the psychotic cat killer and the flying leeches? Where was the crawling eye? Where was the little brother lying in the gutter covered in blood and missing an arm? Where was all the blood and gore in general?

I also didn't like the way Pennywise was played. I love Tim Curry, but I always imagined Pennywise being more snakeish and having a really high squeaky voice. "We allll float down here AUDDDRAAAAAAAAA....."

This is one time when I would absolutely love to see a remake. Something rated R and more faithful to the story.

This really needs to be a thirteen-episode HBO summer miniseries; that's the only form in which it could work. I certainly hope Peter Filardi keeps the late 80s setting, as so much of the novel depends on it.

Only if I get to play Bill's older self and that's if they make it faithful to the novel.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything Bunny Dracula posted.

Now, because I'm a big honkin' geek with nothing better to do with my life that dream-cast potential projects, here's my cast for the new and improved Stephen King's It:

(By the way, these are the older incarnations of the main characters. Once you've secured them, then go looking for kids who (a) resemble them and (b) can act to play the younger versions. Oh, and I realise these aren't huge A-list names but I figured this would be like an HBO production or something.)

Bill: Eric Stoltz
Ben: Dylan McDermott
Beverly: Bridget Fonda
Eddie: David Hyde Pierce
Richie: Dennis Miller
Mike: Courtney B. Vance
Stan: Rob Morrow in a cameo

...and (as he braces himself for an unprecedented level of flaming) Tom Green as Pennywise. I'm thinking he's unhinged and perverse/creepy enough to do the role justice.

Or we could make the movie set in the 80's...

While some folks out there may be alarmed - fed up with this recent glut of remakes of King's "classic" material, I for the most part anyhow , love it!
I mean the original adaptions are now 15, 20, 25 years old now. So, these updates are NOT coming too soon IMO.

This isn't to say that I've been pleased as punch with everything that been done so far. Far from it.
I was VERY disappointed in the CARRIE "re-imaging". Despite two great cast members in Angela Bettis & Patricia Clarkson, I was just left cold by it.
And it lost all of it's tragic magic by having Carrie White survive in the end! I'm sorry, but it just didn't work for me at all.

On the otherhand, I was quite fond of Mick Garris' take on THE SHINING.
It was FAR from perfect, but I still enjoyed the hell out of it.

So far, the best of these King re-adaptions has been the USA Network's THE DEAD ZONE.
Who's have believed that Anthony Micheal Hall would make a perfect Johnny Smityh?
I can't wait for the new season to begin!

The new FIRESTARTER?
That's the one I managed to miss & I still haven't gotten around to renting the DVD.

The upcoming 'SALEM'S LOT?
Oh MAN, I can't wait 'til next month!
I absolutely adored the old CBS two parter that debuted way back in '79 & have very high hopes for the new version.

IT?
Do it again & this time, do it RIGHT I say!
I liked the initial 1990 adaption primarily for what Tim Curry brought to it as everyone's favorite "Dancing Clown", but honestly, other than that it's VERY pedestrian.
There's all KINDS of room for improvement.
Begining with the acting.
The LAST thing we need is the cast comprised of more out of work sit com & family drama actors, all of whom obviously showed up simply for the paycheck & little else.
I'm sorry but watching one of my favorite charecters from the novel played by "John Boy" in a bad hair extention made me want to vomit!
Seriously!


This proposed new production needs actors who are going to take the material completely seriously & give their performances their best efforts.
Actually, I LOVE the suggestion of Eric Stoltz in the cast. He'd be great!

I'll have to take a little bit & think of whom else MY dream cast would be...