because :Present Day" is always cheaper than shooting a period piece, Marc.
Movies: 1135
Comments: 67725
Members: 718
Online: 0 Guests: 273
The return of It
Posted by Patrick Sauriol on Thursday, March 12, 2009
Warner Bros. wants to make a second filmed adaptation of Stephen King's It but this time make it a movie.
In 1990 ABC produced a four-hour mini-series based on King's mammoth book about a group of lonesome kids who fought a monster that lived in the sewers under their small town. Now adults, the group is called to action once again when the creature (who the kids/adults called "It" or Pennywise, when it took the form of a clown) again threatens the safety of the town and their families.
Warners has hired screenwriter Dave Kajganich to adapt the novel; development is being handled by Lin Pictures and Vertigo Entertainment. This is the second Stephen King adaptation that Kajganich has tackled; he did a screenplay for a new Pet Sematary feature that's yet to get greenlighted. One small difference between the source novel and the new film is the timeframe the action will take place in; in the book events start off with the kids in 1958 before leaping ahead to 1985. The new It will be set present day.
I don't think I would consider 1958-1985 a period peace, Mckracken.....
actually it is. yeah i know its weird to consider that Watchmen is actually set in 1985 and even weirder to consider it a "period piece" but thats the jist of it.
and filming a movie that takes place in 1958 is definitly considered a period peice. Basically the set designers and props people work overtime to ensure that nothing from 2009 (read Modern) goes in front of the camera.
I see what you are saying but I still do not consider that a period peice but hey, why not?
I just do not see the point in bringing this movie to modern times, I really don't? But who knows...it could be good. This movie is going to have to be long in order to come across half of the stuff King wrote about in this book. That is why the miniseries was great! It took its time with the story and setting up the characters and town.
I was just thinking that if the execs. are willing to make IT into a movie, why not The Stand! I mean, I really enjoyed the tv minisieres but Molly Ringwald as Fran just about killed it for me.
It sucks when you cast everyone in a film perfectly...except ONE person...it's amazing how that ONE person can almost ruin a movie for you...
and Corin Nemec was that person... wait, you're talking about Molly Ringworm?
stephen King's IT and The Stand have one thing in common... both endings suck.
five adults battle a spider with gold rocks... its been a while since i've seen IT but i could have pulled a better ending out of my a$$.
The hand of God comes down and... oh ok anything with a big old CGI animated Hand Of God coming forth from the sky is spelled L-A-M-E on paper and S-T-U-P-I-D on film. (really)
and both movies had so much going for them... till they ended.
I can get over the ending to The Stand but I DO agree with you Mck (For once) about the ending to IT. After sitting through the miniseries for a couple of hours and building up of these characters and story....to have it end with them battling a fucking spider was a far stretch.....
.....Maybe the movie will do something different with this ending...how it would go, I am not sure but I am not the one writing it so they will figure that shit out...
Gentlemen Death
Location:
Posts: 270
Posted: 15 years 29 weeks ago
Have you noticed that almost all the movies coming out nowadays HAS to be set to present day?
What was wrong with the timeline that it was written for in the book!?