1

Why not…
NEVER seen the original, so Im pretty much open to this one
:]

Toucmyinfection on Mar 12, 2009

2

Really, they have to keep on remaking?

The first IT was scary as fuck. Everyone who saw it got scared, theres no denieing it. I just know that they would butcher it.

Marcus on Mar 12, 2009

3

when it comes to remaking horror films as long as it isn't The Exorcist I'm ok with it…the original was creepy as hell, most likely for me because I saw it when it originally aired and I was very young…as long as they spend the extra money and use practical effects I'll be happy…

Christopher M on Mar 12, 2009

4

Okay you might as well just fucking remake everything. Seriously, go ahead, I'm waiting for my Citizen Kane remake. It could star Russel Crowe and it would be amazing. Come on, do it. Do it.

I could care less.

Itri on Mar 12, 2009

5

RIP Originality ????-2009

you will be missed

Pj on Mar 12, 2009

6

What concerns me is the novel is over 1,000 words long. The made for t.v. series already left out a shit load of material and that went for three hours.

And who's gonna match Tim Curry on the creepy factor?

Matt Holmes on Mar 12, 2009

7

@5

originality is a gamble and costly these days…there is a big reason why remakes and fan based films are popular..because it doesn't cost as much to develop and it's less of a risk

Christopher M on Mar 12, 2009

8

Cool, but I think they will never be able to make a good movieversion of the book. Its impossible. And I dont mean the special effects. I mean the emotional side, the fear, the relationship between the kids and the adults, and stuff like the groupsex scene of the kids in the book… who is brave enough to film stuff like this?
But I wish the moviemakers good luck and great success.
The TV Version was boring, I didnt like it. If you know the book, then its impossible to like the TV version.

Millus on Mar 12, 2009

9

Hey das ist ja grußelig man oh man (added by Mobile using Mippin)

Anni on Mar 12, 2009

10

With remakes now, its all about making it as bloody and possible. I'm sure it wont be as scary just more gory

dan on Mar 12, 2009

11

This was one of my first horrors and I think this is most kids first horror also, well at least people that I know. Original was very creepy but this remake will probably be gore-iness more than creepiness.

Ryan on Mar 12, 2009

12

I can see it being fucking scarier than the first, as hard as it maybe. But theyll fuck it up

Cody on Mar 12, 2009

13

Have Tim Curry do it again. Why not.

Shaun on Mar 12, 2009

14

Another shamless remake.

The original was creepy, and had a classic cast.

790 on Mar 12, 2009

15

I doubt anyone has has seen the original version of It recently would call it 'one of the scariest films of all time'. It's pretty lame actually and could benefit from being remade.

Joel on Mar 12, 2009

16

Maybe it's a good thing WB is picking it up?

I mean, if FOX picked it up, they wouldn't be allowed to kill little kids like they did in the first one. I say, kill those little bastards in the worst ways possible !

… lol I don't really mean that ^^

… or do I? >:D

LW on Mar 12, 2009

17

Your showing your age Joel.
I'm guessing 19?

790 on Mar 12, 2009

18

The original is pretty scary, but I've been advocating for a remake for years. The acting in the original is the scariest part imo.

Travis on Mar 12, 2009

19

I can't imagine IT without tim curry

Florian on Mar 12, 2009

20

I agree; I saw this movie as a kid and it scared the crap outta me! For a made-for-tv movie, enough said. If they remake this on the silver screen but keep the same sorta vibe..it can work. I just hope they don't throw away the script and have a CGI clown or some other stupid crap..

Ah well, I was born in 1982 so I'm seeing my whole childhood come back now..Transformers, GI Joe..what's next, Pound Puppies-the musical?

CDillon on Mar 12, 2009

21

OMG, been waiting for a remaking. I really really hope they make it close to the book. Also that it will be a very long movie.

MonkeyMowse on Mar 12, 2009

22

this movie messed me up so much as a kid that if we start getting news about it then I might have to start avoiding this site…no joke.

Janet on Mar 12, 2009

23

The original was great…until the ending. The ending completely ruined it for me. I was scared throughout the whole thing but as soon as the giant spider popped up I laughed. I'm looking forward to the remake, though.

jfc3po on Mar 12, 2009

24

as long as it's more like the book.

kl on Mar 12, 2009

25

JUST STOP IT YOU FUCKEN BASTARDS! STOP THE MADNESS! MAKE SOMETHING ORIGINAL!

Ray on Mar 12, 2009

26

if the book is unfilmable, get Mr. Watchmen to do it since he "filmed the unfilmable"

wm on Mar 12, 2009

27

I'm just curious about the new look for IT.
Will they give him the joker treatment with the smile extended far beyond the lips?

teyhtr on Mar 12, 2009

28

off to ruin another classic.

Caleb on Mar 12, 2009

29

They all float down here Georgie.

Hey kids, you know what else floats? SHIT! Like 80's remakes! #25's right on the money. A little angry, but right on the money.

You know, in 20 years, I'll still be around. Does this mean I have to watch reboots and remakes of the stuff that was new now? I don't think I'm looking particularly forward to Mall Cop 2029.

How you doin folks, this is gonna SUCK!

DLM Entertainment on Mar 12, 2009

30

I wonder who could play the perfect modern version of Pennywise. . .

Jaf on Mar 12, 2009

31

It! scared the crap out of me as a child, but when I watched it again recently, I was surprised at how much less frightening the film was than I remembered it to be. It really hasn't aged all that well; a remake might not necessarily be a bad thing if it's properly done. I just hope they don't turn it into some brainless gore fest with idiotic teenagers.

John on Mar 13, 2009

32

the first one was god awful, bit Tim Curry saved that movie.
if they stick slightly more true to the book and keep some of the really scary scenes then it can actually be a really good movie.
unlike the TV Version which mashed together separate scenes and turned into some boring amalgam.

The Delightful Deviant on Mar 13, 2009

33

Originality is in "B" movies!

The_Phantom on Mar 13, 2009

34

Let's face it it's a remake of the movie not an adaptation of the book.

Smiffy1 on Mar 13, 2009

35

original was great. but, i don't think they'll be able to put together such a great adult cast. so, this movie probably won't be as good.

dan on Mar 13, 2009

36

”Inspired by the success of the Friday the 13th reboot”

How did that happen??!?? : (

Still, IT is great book…

m4st4 on Mar 13, 2009

37

I am 51% against the remake. 49% still gets scared by that movie. Lets hope that they don't make this movie like all the other remakes. More Nudity less scares and story.

Daniel on Mar 13, 2009

38

Stick Tim Curry in it again and I'll be dandy.

"RIP Originality ????-2009"

Really?

Tyler on Mar 13, 2009

39

STOP THE REBOOTS~!

ITS CHEAPER TO JUST RENT THE FUCKING MOVIE!

I gotta agree, Tyler, Originality is coming second best these days. And even if a new movie comes along and does phenomenal, any movie that comes after it wants to be just like it, ie, "This movie is going to be dark, like The Dark Knight - So come see my movie b/c its like somebody elses"

People are trying to make money off of nostalgic movies that did well in the past, thinking, well, people like these movies, so lets SQUEEEEEZE some more money out of that franchise.

These movies are great b/c of the fanbase built in the past decades. If this movie originally came out now, I bet no one would have faith in it b/c it would be something new that they never heard of, not depending on statistics/fanbase already made on a film.

You know what - I'm gonna remake Harry and the Hendersons, then what the hell, I'm gonna remake The Princess Bride. Thennnn, I donno, Teen Wolf!

Has it really been that long where we need to reintroduce these stories to the public? At this point it just feels like Reboots/Remakes are much of a fad as Low-Carb diets and 'being green'. I understand I may sound a bit jaded, although I feel that not all of these reboots are bad ones, but has it gotten out of hand? Does anyone else feel that this is all they ever hear - reboot this, and revive that?

I know times are tough, but can't production companies have faith in something refreshing? Has the economy been demolished to the point where we only feel safe in putting our money into past accomplishments?? It just seems like its an easy answer.

Nick Sears on Mar 13, 2009

40

Enough with the remakes, already! Hollywood needs to come up with original material. Now that that's out of the way…

Everyone I know (myself included) who thought the original was scary thought so because they saw it so young. Looking back, it's an orgy of the kind of slow-moving and unnecessary heavy-handed 'character development' typical of Stephen King's work that really just serves to take up screen time without adding anything to the story or further endearing the audience to the characters. The original could really and truly have been cut down substantially without losing much of anything. I'm not saying character development is bad, by any means; just that when you devote that much time to it, it should amount to something.

Further, Stephen King has always been outstanding at building suspense, but terrible at the third act payoff. As he says repeatedly through his protagonist in Secret Window, the ending's the most important part. Too bad that with a few very notable exceptions (The Shining, Shawshank Redemption, The Mist), his endings are anti-climactic and usually cheesy enough to thoroughly undo any frightening atmosphere he's worked so hard to build. Just my opinion.

Stiles on Mar 13, 2009

41

Tim Curry was the ONLY good thing about the movie if you've read the book. The movie was completely mis-cast, badly written, badly directed, half-ass acted. I see a lot of people saying "it was the scariest thing I saw when I was a kid"… the key phrase here being "when I was a kid". C'mon people… Time Bandits scared me as a kid. Brazil creeped me the hell out. But you go back and watch them as adults, and you see throuh the bullshit. As John said, IT just doesn't stand up to time the way Time Bandits & Brazil do. In this case a remake might not be such a bad thing… IF they go back to the book and do it right this time. It's somewhat possible - look at The Shining. Maybe not so great, but much closer than Kubrick's version - which, don't get me wrong, I loved, but if you've read the book you know he left out a good-sized chunk of the original story.

And as for Tim Curry… no one can top his Pennywise, but they'll never get him to do it again. My vote is for Michael Ironside.

dragonmum on Mar 13, 2009

42

is notin sacred anymore? for fucksake hollywood!!! stop 'rebooting' films and tv shows and do something original, and yes i agree, they are goin to screw this up like nearly every other remake

eddie on Mar 13, 2009

43

If they get anyone besides Tim Curry. It will flop. I love the IT movies.

TIm on Mar 13, 2009

44

Scariest movie of all time? I just never thought "It" was that scary.

Luke on Mar 13, 2009

45

Scared the Shit out of me as a kid

Jmoney on Mar 13, 2009

46

Kiss me, fat boy.

Parker on Mar 13, 2009

47

beep beep richie……….

please let Tim Curry rise again as the magnificent Pennywise !!!

Deefke on Mar 13, 2009

48

Is anybody else sick to death of reboots and remakes?

B-Han on Mar 13, 2009

49

@dragonmum

You keep making the comparison to the book, but considering its budget and actual aim its fair to even judge the film by not going the way the book went. - I can imagine hating a film because of it, but its actually not that valid of an argument against the movie. Sure the film has some flaws (some major even).

Mis-cast? No, if anything, the film's main accomplishment is creating a great feeling of companionship between the kids. I can imagine it being a fucking hard job to get 7 of these young kids to work so well together. When they are adults the feeling is still there, although to a lesser extent. Which is normal since they haven't seen each other in 30 years.

Badly Written/director? Matter of perspective, I think. I agree on both a little in that it isn't anything spectacular, and thus in some way should automatically be called "bad", since mediocrity is basically the worse possible thing you could have in films.

Most of the dialogue was well written, though, and almost every cynicistic joke Pennywise makes always crack me up.

No film adaptation will ever accomplish what Stephen King did with the book, but for what it is, I thought they did a fine job.

Angelo on Mar 13, 2009

50

If you're all so sick of remakes than get off your asses and write something original! I'm so sick of all the complaining and referring to "Hollywood" as if it's one person out to screw over the general population. The studios are producing these remakes because they make money and people would rather complain about remakes than take the time to write something original themselves.

peloquin on Mar 13, 2009

51

I'm perfectly fine with remakes and reboots. The TV movie was so so lame that the novel definitely deserves better. BUT, and it's a big but, like #23 said, this is a scary story until we meet the spider and then essentially everything is undone. A spider? Really? Imagine LOTR building through three books and we end with the whole thing being about that friggin' spider. Talk about a wimper of an ending.

RandyG on Mar 13, 2009

52

Alex, can you make a post about the whole Reboot/Remake fiasco going on, and see what the overall consensus is from us all??

Nick Sears on Mar 13, 2009

53

# 2

basically the reason they keep remaking is because these movies are so old not even the ppl who saw them in theaters watch it

plus have you seen how bad the defination is for this movie
my vote is go for it make this movie even more fucked up

zach on Mar 13, 2009

54

you know what really needs a remake??? children of the corn

zach on Mar 13, 2009

55

they're remaking pet cemetery?


I kind of had the same reaction. I feel the same way i do about this that i feel about the Nightmare remake. I'll see it, but probably won't like it that much. I'm more interested in seeing how the effects come out and how the make him look.

Jesse Gouldsbury on Mar 13, 2009

56

@Angelo: I have the disadvantage of having read the book well before I saw the movie. The book creeped the hell outta me so that's what I expected from the movie, so the movie was a letdown in a lot of ways. It's the reason I refuse to read Watchmen until after I see it - I'm tired of being disappointed by book-to-movie movies.

My issue with the casting was the adults, not the kids. Mind you they were all fine actors, just wrong for those roles. I can't imagine who I would've cast instead, and thinking about it for a remake makes my brain ache, but it just didn't work for me.

"No film adaptation will ever accomplish what Stephen King did with the book"
Well I'll agree with you there. Movies from his book-length stories never come out right - with the exception of Running Man, which was only very loosely based on the book - but his short stories always do well. The Stand was ok but not great, and again had to be a TV movie because of the length. Maybe that's the problem… the stories are just too complex and layered to translate well. Actually, the more I think about it, the worse a big-screen movie sounds, unless it manages to be a 3-hour movie. Eh, if they can get a really really good Pennywise, I'll give it a chance.

@jfc3po & RandyG: believe it or not, that's actually correct with the book, although it was nowhere near as unearthly or creepy as described in the book. Guess that's the best they could manage, given the tech available at the time. That's right kiddies, a psychic, psychotic, massive alien spider. How's that for a nightmare?

dragonmum on Mar 13, 2009

57

Yeah, at least they could create Pennywise with as little as some fine make-up and good casting, that spider was just too much to ask for. - Not only do special effects like that out date in a minute, the directing in that specific scene wasn't that great either, resulting in disappointment, yet arachnophobia should have work fine in a film like this.

Angelo on Mar 13, 2009

58

I have nothing to say, What if they screwed up the remake ?
I just hate the idea of remaking the old movie was good.
What's going on Hollywood…Out of ideas?!

Fisherr on Mar 13, 2009

59

Curry was cool, but "It" was crap. It had a bunch of TV actors in it, like Harry Anderson and John Ritter, Annette O'Toole. It might have been scary if I was a kid, but I first saw it when I was like 25, and it was, for the most part, underwhelming.

Greedo the Rodian on Mar 13, 2009

60

Sweet!! I saw this again not too long ago and the movie hasn't aged well. All I hope is that they do the clown justice. It has to be the scariest thing on Earth!

Cruzer on Mar 13, 2009

61

Hope they change the ending .Anyone who's around 30 years old, still have nightmares about this movie.

watcher on Mar 13, 2009

62

As long as there's a 20 minute montage of a retarded kid saying "down here, everybody floats."

DCompose on Mar 15, 2009

63

The only way this could be a faithful adaptation is by doing 2 or 3 movies a la Kill Bill.

charles on Mar 15, 2009

64

I think this is good news as long as they make a good job explaining who is Pennywise

Sairuz on Mar 16, 2009

65

I read the book first then watched the movie. I felt little connection or care for the characters in the movie like I did reading the book. The book was raw and borderline uncomfortable on how it dealt with sexuality, racism, anti-semitism, and child abuse. It's (Pennywise) and the Macrouniverse's existence was profound. The Movie was dull, miscast, kid friendly, and anticlimatic. Imagine eating freshly butchered tender loin then going back to a Big Mac. Maybe I am spoiled by careful treatment given to the big budget LOTR. I liked Tim Curry, but that hair and suit was not Pennywise. John Boy is no Big Bill either!

I do not think a two to three hour feature movie could do it justice. They should send it to HBO or Showtime and make it a lengthy R rated series. Many of the supportive background stories (ie. Fire at the Black Spot) could used as full episodes.

Tim Kneeland on Mar 30, 2009

66

This is the greatest news I have heard in a long time as far as movies go! I mean, come on people, we need a revamp of this classic. I just have to address the whole crappy spider ending to the tv series. See, the spider is the closest thing to what "IT" is that humans can contemplate. The spider is evil incarnate. While the turtle is good incarnate. Then there is something much bigger that created the bad spider and the good turtle at the creation of the universe. See how much was left out of the original??? They need to explain all that, to me its one of the most interesting parts. Also, develop the minor characters better. I mean, really put us in Derry, you know. Thats one messed up town. As a side note, there are a lot of remakes these days, but who cares its supply and demand. If people didn't want them they would just flop.

Eric on May 26, 2009

67

i hear alot about how the first movie was 3 hours long and still left alot out. if they went into more detail. they could just divide it up into multiple movies. hell if they can get 6 hours of movie. make into yet another trilogy. it could make the whole story better, in more detail, and they could squeeze more money out of us lol. Im really excited for this remake, and i LOVE the first movie. im going to watch it today actually

Tyler on Jun 3, 2009

68

Let's face it… the tv movie was absolute crap!

Having just now re-read the book 20-years after I first picked it up and now going through the horrible made-for-tv-movie again only confirms many things: bad casting, bad acting, bad editing, bad story telling… how in the world this 80's movie be listed as one of the creepiest flicks is beyond me. Yes, I know you're all rolling in your graves, bemoaning the fact I dare heap negative feedback on a sacred cow, but come on! This was a cow!

And yes, Tim Curry did a respectable job as Pennywise but insofar as getting us to fear the clown?! How many close ups of his grisly teeth and bloodshot eyes w/ skewed camera angles is supposed to frighten us?

And yes, I know it's often hard to translate from the book-to-movie option but after re-reading the book I was afraid of revisiting the tv show, which only reconfirmed my notion some odd 20 years ago that the movie was crap but, Jebus! John Boy as Big Bill? What happened to the red hair? Where was all the stutterting? Bleech! Although I still think Annette O'Toole is a hottie.

I do agree w/ some previous commenters that the kids casting was okay - at best. The only two characters I really thought did any justice were Haystack and Mike. Who the hell could be afraid of Henry? He just came across as a dork.

You want scary then howabout Nightmare on Elm Street? You want scary, howabout Friday the 13th? To this day I remember both my Dad and I watching Friday and at the end when Jason jumps out of the lake to grab the girl in the rowboat - shit! I never saw my Dad leap outta of the couch so fast! You want creepy then howabout 1408?

You want crap, then just re-visit some golden oldies like: Maximum Overdrive, Cujo, Pet Semetary, Christine, and so on.

If this new remake is given the ounce of delicacy that was handed to such stories as The Green Mile, or Shawshank Redemption, or the original The Shining, then I have reason to hope. Hear me now, believe me later, w/ an R-rating I am encouraged.

Now, with that said what I'm really hoping for in a good movie option would be is for Duma Key to reach our screens.

billyjobob on Jun 11, 2009

69

Hell Yeah!

PENNYWISE LIVES!

Erikire on Jun 11, 2009

70

I see a big problem with all the people crying about originality: at this point, nothing is original. Songs and certain ideas have been about the same things for nearly hundreds of years and it'd be pretty hard to come up with something completely original. The point is to come up with a new way of presenting it….a fancier package if you will.

chichidark on Jul 9, 2009

71

People come on here to rant and rave about everything. "just stop doing it", "don't remake it", "my shit doesn't stink". Is it any less original to remake a movie (that's been filmed only once so far) than it is to repeat the same rant everyone else has on places like this site. If people didn't watch remakes, they wouldn't remake them… they make movies that make money. If people didn't go, they wouldn't make them- so stop being babies and if you're sooo offended- just don't watch it.

realistic critic on Jul 24, 2009

72

I don't mind the fact that they're remaking IT. The original was ok, a big favourite amongst my friends when it first came out - but it was nothing compared to the book. Tim Curry was awesome, the kid actors did a good job playing bill, ben etc, and there were some scary moments.
But they can't put it all into one feature film. It's too big. There's so many important things that happen. The death of Patrick Hockstetter, the house on Neibolt street, the moment when they see how IT first came to life long before Man ever walked the Earth and how the 'Turtle' created the universe.

If you're going to do it, do it right.

Andrew Chambers on Aug 14, 2009

73

P.S - The spider at the end of the film is a big part of the book. IT senses that it is close to dying, because the Losers Club almost killed it once (as kids) and they've come back to finish the job. So, when it takes on solid form to feed, as it does every 30 years, it choses the form of a spider so that it can give birth to lots of spider eggs and unleash hundreds of ITs on the world. In the book, all seven of the Losers have a 'role' in the final battle and Ben's is to destroy the eggs.

Andrew Chambers on Aug 14, 2009

74

Yassss a remake ! The original was a amazing movie it is my all time fav movie i love it ! and Jonathan brandis who played young stuttering bill played a amazing preformance as bill but the remake won't be the same with out tim curry and jonathan brandis (R.IP) i miss you <! xxxxxxxxxxxx

Sara Rasul on Sep 4, 2009

75

@ Andrew …regardless, the spider scene just does not translate to film well. That would be even worse nowadays cuz I'm guessing CGI will be used. When I was a kid, I loved everything about the movie UNTIL it got to that retarded scene. Not only was it not scary but, it quickly became a "WTF SO NOW THIS ISN"T A HORROR MOVIE ANYMORE? ITS A BAD SCI-FI MOVIE ALL OF A SUDDEN??". I went to a special midnight theater screening of this a few years ago, and people who had not seen it, started booing loud and walked out of the theater when it got to that scene. It was brutal…and it sucked more than when I saw it the first time. None of Stephen King's movies are scary. They somehow always turn into soem kind of surreal fantasy and fall short. By the way, I'm a fan…I just think he has problems executing really good ideas. At least in the film versions of his stories.

Vinny G on Sep 21, 2009

76

I hope its in 3-D!!!

E K on Sep 23, 2009

77

The original movie is kind of lame… It's just a classic movie that scared me shittless as a kid, but now its just not great.
I see great potential for a remake though. They could go more into It's true form, and how he's from some dark space beyond our universe…
I dont know i see potential and i'm psyched but cautious.

dave on Oct 16, 2009