The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Stephen King's 'It' Remake

A

aijalon18

JUB Addict
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Posts
5,485
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Boston
OMG Pennywise is soo scary. Is there not a single original idea in Hollywood? Every fucking thing is a remake, a comic book, an old cartoon, a teen book series, or a video game.
 
The Matter Of Splatter said:
^The Uninvited was an original idea.

...it gives fuel to the "why we keep doing remakes of old horrors" argument.
Click to expand...
The Uninvited was a remake of the Korean movie "A Tale of Two Sisters," they just changed some of the story. The point of the movie stayed the same.
 
Hmmm. I wonder who is actually going to replace Tim Curry? His performance as Pennywise is unbeatable, at first glance.
 
That was the only horror movie to give me a nightmare...clowns *shudders*
 
The Matter Of Splatter said:
Oh, was it now?

Did it suck just as hard in Korea?
Click to expand...
The original was actually good.

Haven't watched the remake yet, but from the trailer, it looks like it was Americanized beyond belief. They changed up the plot, the atmosphere, just about everything. It's almost not the same movie anymore. Although, from the spoilers I read, the point is still the same.
 
TalkinTotheRain said:
It's been that way for a long time. Even movies right now that people probably mistake for completely original are often based on someone's else's story or idea. Like "Slumdog Millionaire" which was a novel. And "Doubt" which was a play. And "Milk" which of course was based on true events and had already spawned a documentary years ago. And "Frost/Nixon". And "Revolutionary Road" which was another novel. And "The Reader" which was a novel. And the "Curious Case of Benjamin Button" which was a short story. And "No Country for Old Men". And "There Will Be Blood". The list goes on forever.
Click to expand...

WOW I had no idea that ALL those movies are based on other things. This shit is more ridiculous than I thought. How does this happen? I know so many film majors and all Hollywood puts out is unoriginal shit. That sucks
 
I've got the original one on DVD. Like the rest I'm skeptical of remakes because they're usually hyper-sexual and make a mockery of the original storyline....BUT....I'm a movie fanatic and would probably end up watching it when it's available on Netflix.

I probably won't enjoy it though, especially since I don't know a director alive who can make a 3-hour film as substantial as the original, it'll probably be an hour and a half of a buunch of hot teens running around a mansion.
 
I may be alone in this, but I only liked about the first half of the original. It starts out actually being creepy as hell, then it kinda gets out of hand once the kids are all grown up and looking for the clown. I'm curious to see what they did with it... they'll never find a better clown though!
 
Rather than a remake, I'd rather it be a sequel of sorts. In the novel "It" had laid eggs before being destroyed. They should have the offspring carry on "It's" presence and make Pennywise awake again.
 
I see a lot of people on You Tube complaining about the finale of the first one. They didn't like the idea of It being a Gigantic Spider. I was curious what everyone else thought.

My thoughts are that it was the right decision. The problem was that it wasn't a very realistic looking spider. Now of they could have given us something like Lord of the Rings, Return of the King ... that's a different story. But the technology wasn't there back then.

The point that a lot of people miss when they critique it, though is that they think It was really a spider and this was his true form. It actually wasn't, according to the book. Pennywise, also says right before the final confrontation that they will never see "him", but rather "only what their minds will allow".

I also know there was a scene in the book where someone (not sure who) looked into the Deadlights of Pennywise earlier on, and saw It's true form behind the lights. It was described as a Gigantic, Hairy Creature that was seen crawling ... that was made entirely out of blinding, orange light.

So I can only assume that because the figure somewhat resembled a spider (because it crawled and was hairy ... even though it was made purely out of light) that they assumed It was probably a spider.

But I can say this. If I had a choice between fighting a demon clown, and going up against a Giant Spider ... I'm taking the Clown.
 
I'm usually fine with remakes.. But this.. I just have to ask, why? The original was frightening.. up until the spider part. Meh.. I'll give it a chance. Just like I'm giving the Never Ending Story remake a chance.
 
They are going to destroy a classic with this one. They should just leave it alone.
 
Midnight77 said:
I see a lot of people on You Tube complaining about the finale of the first one. They didn't like the idea of It being a Gigantic Spider. I was curious what everyone else thought.
Click to expand...
It wasn't the fact that it was simply a spider-like creature which made the bad ending. But the fact that it did not seem anywhere near as menacing as Pennywise. I would think the creature in it's natural form should be much more menacing than it is in Pennywise form. Instead it just made for a rather anticlimatic ending; although not entirely atypical for a Stephen King based story based movie.
 
Qixote said:
It wasn't the fact that it was simply a spider-like creature which made the bad ending. But the fact that it did not seem anywhere near as menacing as Pennywise. I would think the creature in it's natural form should be much more menacing than it is in Pennywise form. Instead it just made for a rather anticlimatic ending; although not entirely atypical for a Stephen King based story based movie.
Click to expand...

I read the book before the TV movie was made. The book was the same way. You were scared all the way through only to discover it was a big stupid spider at the end. Kind of disappointing.
 
Qixote said:
It wasn't the fact that it was simply a spider-like creature which made the bad ending. But the fact that it did not seem anywhere near as menacing as Pennywise. I would think the creature in it's natural form should be much more menacing than it is in Pennywise form. Instead it just made for a rather anticlimatic ending; although not entirely atypical for a Stephen King based story based movie.
Click to expand...


But again, though ... even the Spider wasn't really It's true form. That, you had to use your imagination for, although the book claims that one of the kids saw It's true form by staring into the deadlights. But the spider was merely the Earth form that was the closest their minds could come to approximating what his actual true form (which exists outside this world) really was. And it also makes sense given that the creature is slaughtering hundreds of children ... for it to actually be something enormous.

I do admit that the spider they used looked terrible. However, given today's technology, I'm sure it would look a lot more realistic, using animation.

But I can't believe anyone in their right mind would rather battle a gigantic spider, as opposed to a clown, that is at least near your height.

Maybe it's just me because I'm arachnophobic, but I think studies tend to show that this is one thing a sizable portion of the population is indeed afraid of. And I think that was what King's goal was in the movie ... was to use people's fear of spiders to create tension. As I said though, it was all ruined by the machine they built, which looked horrible.

With the same token, maybe more people are simply scared of clowns then I thought. I'll take the clown. You guys can fight the gigantic spider.
 
aijalon18 said:
WOW I had no idea that ALL those movies are based on other things. This shit is more ridiculous than I thought. How does this happen? I know so many film majors and all Hollywood puts out is unoriginal shit. That sucks
Click to expand...

Hollywood has been basing movies on books, plays and short stories since the moving picture was invented. That's nothing new and it's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look at Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz. The same goes for movie remakes. In the very early days of Hollywood it wasn't uncommon for a movie to be remade in only a few years. Greta Garbo filmed Anna Karenina twice and how many versions of A Star is Born are there??

With that said, Annette O'Toole owns! I love her in this movie.
 
Re: IT the scariest tvserie ever 2009 Remake!

My favorite Steven King book.

but there's no way to do that book justice in less than about 8 hours. Sorry.. no way at all. It's a really long, complex, multi-level story. Two stories, really... happening 30 years apart.
 
Re: IT the scariest tvserie ever 2009 Remake!

Given that the first movie was a tv miniseries, and of course, edited and such for American television; wouldn't it be better to have a version that could have a bit more of a 'darker' side to it?

Granted, I'm never one to replace Tim Curry; so, he'll just have to do it all over again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top