Stephen King's IT to be remade.

[MastahShredder]

One of my favorite books. Tim Curry was amazing as Pennywise.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hea...er-bros-706062

[blindturtle02]

Huh, so they're finally revisiting this idea? I'd heard that they were going to get around to it in 09 or so, but it didn't happen. I loved the book and the original movie as well, so I'll give this thing a whirl. Can't imagine who will be able to top Tim though. Now if only they'd get around to making the friggin Dark Tower into a TV series... haha

[MikeandRaph87]

Ironically, I first saw the two part It just two days ago for the first time. I am not a fan of Stephen King but this and The Green Mile fall within my interest. It was in a great format (2 two hour segments) and a little bit of humor, action, horror, and mystery all mixed together. Its definitely unique amongst Stephen King works.

This was mention on the internet a few months back as a rumor. Is this confirmation or just reaffirming the months old rumor?

[MastahShredder]

Originally Posted by MikeandRaph87

Ironically, I first saw the two part It just two days ago for the first time. I am not a fan of Stephen King but this and The Green Mile fall within my interest. It was in a great format (2 two hour segments) and a little bit of humor, action, horror, and mystery all mixed together. Its definitely unique amongst Stephen King works.

This was mention on the internet a few months back as a rumor. Is this confirmation or just reaffirming the months old rumor?

No, it is real and has picked up again. New Line has the rights now instead of Warner Brothers.

The long road to re-adapt Stephen King's novel It has taken another turn.
Warner Bros. has been developing a big-screen take for five years, and in 2012 it hired Cary Fukunaga to direct two films produced by Roy Lee, Dan Lin, Seth Grahame-Smith and David Katzenberg.

But just as Fukunaga is coming off HBO's True Detective, the project is leaving Warners -- sort of.
In a rare move, It is shifting to the studio's New Line division. Insiders say that as New Line prepares for a June move from West Hollywood to Warners' Burbank lot, the siblings are drawing clearer distinctions about the types of movies they make.

New Line will now take the lead on horror, bringing the company back to one of its roots. It was once known as the House that Freddy Built due to the long-standing success of the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise. Horror is now having a resurgence at the company -- the emphasis is less slashery and more thrills and chills -- as evidenced by last year's hit The Conjuring.

And It is a horror play. The story follows a group of kids called the Losers Club who defeat a creature called It. Years later, the creature returns and the club, now adults, have to band together again even though they have no memory of the first battle.
The plan is for the first movie to tell the kids’ story and the second movie to focus on the adults.

It will be overseen by the division's Walter Hamada and Dave Neustadter, along with Warners vp production Niija Kuykendall, who will also stay involved with the project.

[MikeandRaph87]

I see. The last I heard Warner Bros. was in negotiations to make the film but had yet to make a deal. Its like WB did pick it up but got it for its New Line division like Viacom got Ninja Turtles for Nickelodeon.

Two movies like the previous format and perhaps released in consecutive years like Kill Bill? That sounds like a solid plan though we know how it all pans out like most book adaptations (Hunger Games, Harry Potter). Its just a matter of what New Line will throw in there to stand out from the book and the previous film. The most important thing other than standing out while remaining loyal to what came before is getting a convincing Pennywise and sure the Losers Club is not annoying but believable.

[pennydreadful]

I can't imagine anybody topping Tim Curry, cuz that man is just aces in my book... they'd definitely want to do better than the last movie treatment of "It" though. Admittedly I'm a book snob, but I didn't really find their last attempt at adapting the novel to be very scary - and I'm terrified of clowns, so it shouldn't have been hard for the to give me the heebie jeebies!

Anyway, definitely hanging out for this so far - poor Stephen King's novels rarely manage to make the transition from book to big screen well (though Silver Bullet and Carrie were definitely exceptions to that rule... and Thinner was good, despite the changes that they made).

[Shiro Kame]

From the commercial, the remake is scarier than the original.

[Shiro Kame]

I saw a commercial of IT a couple years ago...unless I remembered wrong...It was enough to creep me out.

[MikeandRaph87]

I was wondering if there has been any more said about this project or if it had made any progress in preproduction or if it landed in development hell.

[turtlefanforever]

idk how to feel about this. I think they should just leave it be.

[pennydreadful]

I haven't really heard anything; I think it's still going ahead - last I heard was that they were still in early production and were looking at a 2015 release? I don't recall seeing much news on any of the horror news sites I visit of late though...

[MikeandRaph87]

Originally Posted by pennydreadful

I haven't really heard anything; I think it's still going ahead - last I heard was that they were still in early production and were looking at a 2015 release? I don't recall seeing much news on any of the horror news sites I visit of late though...

If its out in 2015 presumably Fall that production would have a script and become screening actors by now. That being said I assumed official release would have mentioned a certain stage of progress had been made. I just got an itch to watch a few clips of the 1990 edition with Halloween coming up and hoped for news on this.

[JakeSully]

whenever who makes a film based on the novel Moby Dick is not "remaking" John Huston's film. They're making a new film based on the same literary source material. That's what the new IT films are, a separate adaptation of the book and not a remake of the earlier film.

For example i don't consider John Carpenter's The Thing to be a remake of The Thing From Another World because they are 2 completely different films. They use the same source material, which comes from a book entitled Who Goes There by John Campbell, but the movies take different directions with that material and are nothing alike because of it. I would consider Carpenter's version to be a remake if he had tried to reinvent the 1951 film and borrowed aspects from it, but he did not. A remake to me is the Hills Have Eyes 1977 and Hills have Eyes 2006 because it uses the same plot, takes aspects from it, including being based on the motion picture produced earlier plus the screenplay written earlier and what not. Carpenter didn't do that. He made his own movie according to him and his own independent adaptation. They are 2 separate completely different adaptations of the novella, Hawk's adaptation was a terrible travesty of an adaptation that completely ignored it (the location/the characters and background/the monster/the discover and origin of the spaceship/nature with methods of the alien as Hawk's film was a creature who didn't imitate anyone like the creature from Campbell's book as it had only one form being a vampiric vegetable humanoid who can reproduce itself but wasn't a shapeshifting imitating being) but still a damned good 1951 film despite being one of the worst book to film adaptations of all time like Running Man or Lawnmower Man or whatever. Carpenter's adaptation is a standalone film that is true to the book as it's an excellent adaptation.

It would be like saying every Dracula film is a "remake" of the 1931 film or the silent classic Nosferatu, NO they are all separate and different adaptation of the same source material. Another example is the films Last Man on Earth, Omega Man and I Am Legend which are all separate and completely different adaptations of the original source material which have nothing to do with each other. Same goes for Nolan's Batman Trilogy which aren't remakes of the earlier Batman films while The Dark Knight is a sequel while not a remake of 89's Batman because of Joker and stuff as it's a completely different story with a different Joker as i consider Nolan's trilogy to be a separate adaptation of the comics and graphic novels.

There is a difference between a remake and an adaptation.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Thing, Stephen King's The Shining, Lord of the Rings, Dredd, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Omega Man/I Am Legend, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Carrie, A Christmas Carol, Amazing Spider-Man, Let Me In, the upcoming IT 2 part movies, War of the Worlds, the upcoming Crow film etc. are adaptations of source material being books, novellas and comics. Including being separate adaptations.

Night of the Living Dead, The Fog, Halloween, Maniac, Hills Have eyes, A nightmare on Elm Street, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, House on Haunted Hill, Ocean's 11, King Kong, Father of the Bride, The Nutty Professor etc. those are remakes in every sense of the word.

I can't wait to see how this new r-rated big screen adaptation goes, maybe Kevin Spacey should play Pennywise.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Not sure what the point of that post was, but oooo-kaaay. Also, I'm not sure how I feel about how the first movie is focusing on them as kids and usingthe second for the adults' story. Part of what made the book (and the original movie) work so well was the extensive use of flashbacks and how it would go back and forth, telling the story bit by bit and side by side so that you saw how things were happening all over again. Breaking that flow just seems like it would take something away from the story.

[Candy Kappa]

well, I hope it is an adaptation of Stephen King's It the book and not a remake of It with Tim Curry (although Curry can totally reprise that role imo)

I've only seen the Curry movie as a kid, and i remember that I though the Spider was It's actual form, and was extremely disappointed by the ending.

[pennydreadful]

Originally Posted by JakeSully

It would be like saying every Dracula film is a "remake" of the 1931 film or the silent classic Nosferatu, NO they are all separate and different adaptation of the same source material. Another example is the films Last Man on Earth, Omega Man and I Am Legend which are all separate and completely different adaptations of the original source material which have nothing to do with each other. Same goes for Nolan's Batman Trilogy which aren't remakes of the earlier Batman films while The Dark Knight is a sequel while not a remake of 89's Batman because of Joker and stuff as it's a completely different story with a different Joker as i consider Nolan's trilogy to be a separate adaptation of the comics and graphic novels.

There is a difference between a remake and an adaptation.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Thing, Stephen King's The Shining, Lord of the Rings, Dredd, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Omega Man/I Am Legend, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Carrie, A Christmas Carol, Amazing Spider-Man, Let Me In, the upcoming IT 2 part movies, War of the Worlds, the upcoming Crow film etc. are adaptations of source material being books, novellas and comics. Including being separate adaptations.

The point is that IT does not work as a good horror story when you cut so much of what's in the book out of it - as the original film did. If you can't do a film that at least conveys the spirit of the source material faithfully, then people are going to have legitimate criticisms.

I understand that not everything that's in books can make it into a movie adaptation - I get it. I'm not going to throw a sh*t fit because Winky wasn't in the fourth Harry Potter movie, y'know? But a concerted effort still needs to be made to convey the emotions that one undergoes when reading the book. King is a master of his craft. It's not like we're discussing the 50 Shades of Grey movie here. I have a problem when good literature is hacked apart just for the sake of a studio buck with no care for the final product. Write me off as being a pseudo-intellectual snob, but my opinion on this matter is never going to change, regardless of what anybody says.

The Crow is a perfect example - the film made plenty of significant changes from the original graphic novel. But they kept the tone and the message of the source material intact.

Then you look at The Hobbit, where they crammed in a bunch of extra crap just so they could stretch it out to three movies. Perfect example of a bad adaptation.

Kubrick's film treatment of The Shining was also absolutely ghastly, and was not faithful to the tone of the novel in any way, shape or form. King himself has said that he hates it. That movie was an absolute butchery of a genuinely frightening novel and I cannot fathom why so many horror fans think it's the cat's proverbial pyjamas.

Whether it's perceived as a remake or an adaptation is purely down to the wording in the film news articles. If there's already an existing movie based on that novel, it's fairly standard that it's going to be referred to as a remake - whether or not it's a new take on adapting the novel. Regardless of what word you use to describe it - remake or adaptation, it really doesn't have anything to do with anything. The creative team still needs to do a good job.

That being said, the ending to IT was batsh*t crazy and I'm fairly certain that King was still soundly in the grip of Team Alcoholica when he wrote that part. There's not a film adaptation in the world that ain't gonna change that ending.

[shuriken]

I can't believe I still haven't read the book. Saw the movie, but when it comes to King, the books/ short stories are better 85% of the time.
Should be neat to see how they do the remake though.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by pennydreadful

The point is that IT does not work as a good horror story when you cut so much of what's in the book out of it - as the original film did. If you can't do a film that at least conveys the spirit of the source material faithfully, then people are going to have legitimate criticisms......

That being said, the ending to IT was batsh*t crazy and I'm fairly certain that King was still soundly in the grip of Team Alcoholica when he wrote that part. There's not a film adaptation in the world that ain't gonna change that ending.

Agreed on both points here, penny. The book was MUCH creepier, primarily because of things like Patrick's death, the things he did to the animals in the junkyard, Beverly's husband and father, and the ultimate form of the creature. That and Bill's wife's reaction when she first SAW "It". That scene was completely left out, and it's what chilled me more than anything else in the book.

Speaking of which- I think the ending being bat-$h*t crazy was half the reason that book worked so well as a horror story. And King has even said it was one of the stories that came out of his own nightmares, just as much of his most frightening work has. Which explains A LOT.

[pennydreadful]

Yeah, I can roll with It's final form, I'm more just thinking about

Spoiler:

the sex-athon at the end when they're lost in the tunnels.

As I said, this was one of the novels he wrote when he was having substance abuse problems in the 80s; "It" was published in '86 and King was using cocaine heavily from 1978 to 1986, as well as drinking and abusing prescription meds. He did the first rough draft in 1980 and the finished novel took him four years to write, so this puts the book smack in the middle of his drug years. He wrote some great books during that time - like "Misery", but he also wrote "Tommyknockers"... so, y'know... yeah.

I did find It scarier before we saw what It actually looked like, but I think that's because your mind always comes up with much scarier stuff when it isn't given the full picture.

Honestly, I don't know that a movie adaptation of "It" could ever really fully capture the scariness of the book... stuff like the feel of the small town, the petty, myriad, everyday cruelties that people inflict on one another... the thought processes of characters like Bowers and his descent into madness, and the racism that he absorbs from his father... a lot of King's work is very very complex and has a lot of themes and so much of the world-building and important character moments take place inside the thoughts of the characters. It's not an easy thing to convey in a different medium.

Anyone else wondering if they're going to include Adrian Mellon's death in the movie? Because I feel like that's an important thing to include, as it kind of shows It's influence over the whole town as well as the adult population, and the atmosphere of violence which is present for so much of the character's lives.

What people need to grasp is that what makes "It" scary is that it's not just a story about kids fighting a monster. It's a story about how the family values mindset of the 1950s completely failed to deliver, and how if you turned that "happy family" over on its back, you'd see its rotten, ugly, stinking underbelly. The facade of a normal, happy family in a safe, small town was just that - a lie. That was part of the horror of the story. As a kid, you're meant to believe that your corner of the world is safe and orderly and the adults in it are dependable, and really, they're not. There is no safe place and there's nothing reliable and every year, the older you get, the more you realize that. And they grow up and they have to carry all of their own baggage with them and you experience a totally different horror because most of them grew up to be just as flawed as their parents. The book is just as much about the terror of growing up as it is about the terror of being a child chased by monsters.

[blindturtle02]

I hope they do include it. I remember reading the book for the first time at age 12 or so, and his death probably hit me the hardest. Yeah I'd watched the news and heard of stuff like that going on but the book made it a bit more real. Ironic since it was a work of fiction. Adrian was one of those characters I automatically started cheering for even though the outcome was already apparent. Who knows? They might very well include it in the film. I'm also hoping for that standpipe scene. I certainly enjoyed the book more than the TV movie adaptation mostly because of the other forms It took. It's probably my favorite monster ever since it can be pretty much whatever the heck it wants to. I think I'll always hear Tim Curry's voice as the voice of Pennywise in my head while reading, but that's just because I saw the film on it's world premier night so many years ago and his voice has long sense been in my nightmares.