I think it's the only way to give full justice to the gangbang.

if I wanted to subject everyone to severe mental retardation, I'd post the Nostalgia Critic's review of It.

What is?

Big Beef Burrito: What is?

It

Big Beef Burrito: What is?

This

/i dont even

texdent: Big Beef Burrito: What is?

It

What is it?

texdent: Big Beef Burrito: What is?

It

Youuuuu want it all but you can't have it.

You....

At first when I read this headline I was like:

"Gooby, pls"

I never saw/read 'It' as a kid so I don't have it ingrained in my head that it was a scary movie.
But I watched some of the clip in that article, and man if that isn't the stupidest concept/movie I've ever heard of.

And movies back then could still be scary, but that one did not age well at all I would say.

Why does that entity terrorize children? What's the point? It just doesn't make sense. Maybe back in the 70's (80's?) it worked, but it just seems so... dumb.

I'm sure the remake will be chock full of "scariness" like sudden and harsh sound effects accompanied by tons of CG.

sure haven't: I never saw/read 'It' as a kid so I don't have it ingrained in my head that it was a scary movie.
But I watched some of the clip in that article, and man if that isn't the stupidest concept/movie I've ever heard of.

And movies back then could still be scary, but that one did not age well at all I would say.

Why does that entity terrorize children? What's the point? It just doesn't make sense. Maybe back in the 70's (80's?) it worked, but it just seems so... dumb.

I'm sure the remake will be chock full of "scariness" like sudden and harsh sound effects accompanied by tons of CG.

IT screws with everyone in Derry, from causing a fire that kills people to murdering some gay guy on a bridge.

The meddling kids just happen to be the ones to figure it out.

Tim Curry made that movie so great.

/fan boy

I watched IT, and was let down. Absolutely nothing about Information Technology, just some stupid clown.

Tim Curry is probably too old for Pennywise at this point, but he needs to be in this somehow. At least as a cameo.

I love the part where Trashcan Man burns Salem's Lot to the ground.

Sybarite: I think it's the only way to give full justice to the gangbang.


I LOL'd.

I read the book back in 9th grade, and holy shiat that scene took me by surprise.

I guess, but only if the underage gangbang scene is handled tastefully and has artistic merit.

Gangbang aside, it was a made-for-TV schlockfest, pretty lame. Unless HBO is involved, anything like that based on Stephen King is going to suck.

Two movies? I bet the first will be based on events in 1958, the second one in 1987.

I can't see how this won't suck... or so Bill Denbrough sometimes thinks on those early mornings after dreaming, when he almost remembers his childhood, and the friends with whom he shared it.

sure haven't: Why does that entity terrorize children? What's the point? It just doesn't make sense.

I also never read it, and it has been a while since I saw the movie, but I had read somewhere that Pennywise is a similar creature to the Dandelo in the Dark Tower (I forget which book it was), and that they feed off of emotion.

Raug the Dwarf: I guess, but only if the underage gangbang scene is handled tastefully and has artistic merit.

Like in Last Exit to Brooklyn, but with kids!

ChimpMitten: but I had read somewhere that Pennywise is a similar creature to the Dandelo in the Dark Tower (I forget which book it was), and that they feed off of emotion.

Stephen King recycling ideas? Surely you jest!

As a childhood fan from way back who at one point could have claimed to read every single thing written by him let me just say this: King can write good short stories.

Soup4Bonnie: As a childhood fan from way back who at one point could have claimed to read every single thing written by him let me just say this: King can write good short stories.

All of his work was excelent when he was drunk and or high while writing. Once he cleaned up... not so much.

Steve go back to the drugs. The literary world will thank you.

Saiga410: Soup4Bonnie: As a childhood fan from way back who at one point could have claimed to read every single thing written by him let me just say this: King can write good short stories.

All of his work was excelent when he was drunk and or high while writing. Once he cleaned up... not so much.

Steve go back to the drugs. The literary world will thank you.

Agree on the short stories. But I would say that his novels suffer from "Don't know how to end it"-itis. They begin great and carry you through but everything starts to fall apart in the last few chapters. Every. Damned. Time.

Third base!

I only saw the 2-part made for TV adaptation when it premiered on television years ago. I remember it as a legitimately good first part and then some budget-strapped idiots beating on a paper mache spider in the second part.
/It had Judge Harry T. Stone and Jack Tripper.

sure haven't: I never saw/read 'It' as a kid so I don't have it ingrained in my head that it was a scary movie.
But I watched some of the clip in that article, and man if that isn't the stupidest concept/movie I've ever heard of.

And movies back then could still be scary, but that one did not age well at all I would say.

Why does that entity terrorize children? What's the point? It just doesn't make sense. Maybe back in the 70's (80's?) it worked, but it just seems so... dumb.

I'm sure the remake will be chock full of "scariness" like sudden and harsh sound effects accompanied by tons of CG.

I did read it and see the movie when I was a kid. Allow me to answer some of your questions...

1) you're partly right that it didn't age well, but mostly the problem is that it's a made-for-tv movie. in the realm of made-for-tv movie versions of stephen king stories, it's pretty good. however, adult bill's horrible poneytail really looks absurd now. it reminds me of darill from kids in the hall.

2) while the movie is schlocky, tim curry really made the character of pennywise his own and did a great job. he is what made it scary, even if most of what made pennywise scary in the book was taken out and the character was reduced in large part to a wise-cracking heckler.

3) that said, in the book pennywise was an absolutely brutal supernatural killing machine who loved taking on the form of your worst nightmare before killing you in a horrible way.

4) in the book, pennywise doesn't just terrorize children. he terrorizes whoever he pleases. iirc, he feeds on them and the fear makes them taste better, so clearly children are a prime target, but not his only target (a lot of his victims are late teens). in the movie, pennywise terrorizes children because he can only feed on people who believe in him, and generally people either never see him and thus stop being prone to believe, or they do see him and die.

5) if they do a new movie with just some jump scares they will have wandered very far from the source material. i do hope that they can do more interesting things with CGI but if pennywise isn't rooted in a real actor it will be lame. i do hope they turn up how brutal pennywise is to be more like the book.

That book gave me many fitful nights of sleep in high school. It freaked me out to walk 30 feet down the hallway to take a whizz at night imagining shiat that might jump out of the other rooms in our house.

The only Steven King movie that I've ever watched was Cujo. Never read the book, but I like to think that in the book the dog ate that annoying little boy. Damn that was a dull movie. I even asked my dad, who was a Steven King fan about that movie and how the hell was that supposed to be scary. He laughed and explained it as for what ever reason, Steven King just doesn't translate well into film. Having listened to quite a few audio dramas, this actually makes sense. Writing a story without the intent of filming it gives you more freedom and allows for the reader to use their to scare them. CGI, stop motion, rotoscoping, etc... will never compare to the human imagination.

burndtdan: sure haven't: I never saw/read 'It' as a kid so I don't have it ingrained in my head that it was a scary movie.
But I watched some of the clip in that article, and man if that isn't the stupidest concept/movie I've ever heard of.

And movies back then could still be scary, but that one did not age well at all I would say.

Why does that entity terrorize children? What's the point? It just doesn't make sense. Maybe back in the 70's (80's?) it worked, but it just seems so... dumb.

I'm sure the remake will be chock full of "scariness" like sudden and harsh sound effects accompanied by tons of CG.

I did read it and see the movie when I was a kid. Allow me to answer some of your questions...

1) you're partly right that it didn't age well, but mostly the problem is that it's a made-for-tv movie. in the realm of made-for-tv movie versions of stephen king stories, it's pretty good. however, adult bill's horrible poneytail really looks absurd now. it reminds me of darill from kids in the hall.

2) while the movie is schlocky, tim curry really made the character of pennywise his own and did a great job. he is what made it scary, even if most of what made pennywise scary in the book was taken out and the character was reduced in large part to a wise-cracking heckler.

3) that said, in the book pennywise was an absolutely brutal supernatural killing machine who loved taking on the form of your worst nightmare before killing you in a horrible way.

4) in the book, pennywise doesn't just terrorize children. he terrorizes whoever he pleases. iirc, he feeds on them and the fear makes them taste better, so clearly children are a prime target, but not his only target (a lot of his victims are late teens). in the movie, pennywise terrorizes children because he can only feed on people who believe in him, and generally people either never see him and thus stop being prone to believe, or they do see him and die.

5) if they do a new movie with just some jump scares they will ...

6) He's from outer space!

Not really relevant but I didn't know that until rereading the book a few months ago. It landed in the Derry area prior to evolution and hung around a long time. I didn't know, or couldn't recall, that from reading it in my teens in the 80s.

rudemix: burndtdan: sure haven't: I never saw/read 'It' as a kid so I don't have it ingrained in my head that it was a scary movie.
But I watched some of the clip in that article, and man if that isn't the stupidest concept/movie I've ever heard of.

And movies back then could still be scary, but that one did not age well at all I would say.

Why does that entity terrorize children? What's the point? It just doesn't make sense. Maybe back in the 70's (80's?) it worked, but it just seems so... dumb.

I'm sure the remake will be chock full of "scariness" like sudden and harsh sound effects accompanied by tons of CG.

I did read it and see the movie when I was a kid. Allow me to answer some of your questions...

1) you're partly right that it didn't age well, but mostly the problem is that it's a made-for-tv movie. in the realm of made-for-tv movie versions of stephen king stories, it's pretty good. however, adult bill's horrible poneytail really looks absurd now. it reminds me of darill from kids in the hall.

2) while the movie is schlocky, tim curry really made the character of pennywise his own and did a great job. he is what made it scary, even if most of what made pennywise scary in the book was taken out and the character was reduced in large part to a wise-cracking heckler.

3) that said, in the book pennywise was an absolutely brutal supernatural killing machine who loved taking on the form of your worst nightmare before killing you in a horrible way.

4) in the book, pennywise doesn't just terrorize children. he terrorizes whoever he pleases. iirc, he feeds on them and the fear makes them taste better, so clearly children are a prime target, but not his only target (a lot of his victims are late teens). in the movie, pennywise terrorizes children because he can only feed on people who believe in him, and generally people either never see him and thus stop being prone to believe, or they do see him and die.

5) if they do a new movie with just some jump scares ...

I can't remember if he's really from space or "Todash" space a la the Dark Tower.

"It" is one of the few movies I wouldn't mind a remake of. Tim Curry as Pennywise was great, the rest of that movie was a boring cheap-looking cheesy pile of suck.

Raug the Dwarf: Saiga410: Soup4Bonnie: As a childhood fan from way back who at one point could have claimed to read every single thing written by him let me just say this: King can write good short stories.

All of his work was excelent when he was drunk and or high while writing. Once he cleaned up... not so much.

Steve go back to the drugs. The literary world will thank you.

Agree on the short stories. But I would say that his novels suffer from "Don't know how to end it"-itis. They begin great and carry you through but everything starts to fall apart in the last few chapters. Every. Damned. Time.

Yes, they do, though, personally, I feel the end of the Dark Tower wasn't bad at all. It was more Sopranos than an actual ending, but not unfitting.

gopher321: Unless HBO is involved, anything like that based on Stephen King is going to suck.

Well, for TV. If it's for the big screen, it needs to be made by Darabont.

Big Beef Burrito: texdent: Big Beef Burrito: What is?

It

What is it?

It is fine. Everything is fine.

Stephen King's 'It' was on of the few novels of his that I think was just about perfect.

Most of his stuff, I enjoy like the first 95% of it until it just ends with a sputter.

11/22/63 was one that started off great until the last 2 or 300 pages. The ending was just horrible.


I will say I'm surprised at how many people in this thread are claiming to have never read 'It'. I've always considered it one of the classic Stephen King novels that almost all Americans have read.

sure haven't: Why does that entity terrorize children? What's the point? It just doesn't make sense. Maybe back in the 70's (80's?) it worked, but it just seems so... dumb

Book still exists and is still good. Will explain all that.

Great Janitor: Never read the book, but I like to think that in the book the dog ate that annoying little boy.

Nope, he dies though. Never saw the movie.

Bunnyhat: 11/22/63 was one that started off great until the last 2 or 300 pages. The ending was just horrible.

It wasn't so bad, just unimaginative and the romatic part at the very end was a little overdone, but it fine.

spoilerishI thought it would've been better had everything been changed for the better, but that the time threads were still unresolvable and would fall apart if it wasn't set right.

Raug the Dwarf: Saiga410: Soup4Bonnie: As a childhood fan from way back who at one point could have claimed to read every single thing written by him let me just say this: King can write good short stories.

All of his work was excelent when he was drunk and or high while writing. Once he cleaned up... not so much.

Steve go back to the drugs. The literary world will thank you.

Agree on the short stories. But I would say that his novels suffer from "Don't know how to end it"-itis. They begin great and carry you through but everything starts to fall apart in the last few chapters. Every. Damned. Time.

I would agree, with the exception of Pet Semetary. I thought that ended brilliantly

Will Bev still be a giant whore?

Also I sooo want to see the destruction of downtown Derry. Ooh, and the fire at the Black Spot.

Bunnyhat: Stephen King's 'It' was on of the few novels of his that I think was just about perfect.

Most of his stuff, I enjoy like the first 95% of it until it just ends with a sputter.

11/22/63 was one that started off great until the last 2 or 300 pages. The ending was just horrible.


I will say I'm surprised at how many people in this thread are claiming to have never read 'It'. I've always considered it one of the classic Stephen King novels that almost all Americans have read.

I thought the end of It was a little "meh".

Pennywise's face was/is the only thing that made me afraid of the closet.

Great Janitor: The only Steven King movie that I've ever watched was Cujo. Never read the book, but I like to think that in the book the dog ate that annoying little boy. Damn that was a dull movie. I even asked my dad, who was a Steven King fan about that movie and how the hell was that supposed to be scary. He laughed and explained it as for what ever reason, Steven King just doesn't translate well into film. Having listened to quite a few audio dramas, this actually makes sense. Writing a story without the intent of filming it gives you more freedom and allows for the reader to use their to scare them. CGI, stop motion, rotoscoping, etc... will never compare to the human imagination.

I don't know, The Shining is pretty damn scary. Especially the part with the blowjob bear.

/Is that considered a spoiler?

What is it?

Is it Pennywise that is parodied in Scary Movie II? That scene always cracks me up.

burndtdan: I did read it and see the movie when I was a kid. Allow me to answer some of your questions...

1) you're partly right that it didn't age well, but mostly the problem is that it's a made-for-tv movie. in the realm of made-for-tv movie versions of stephen king stories, it's pretty good. however, adult bill's horrible poneytail really looks absurd now. it reminds me of darill from kids in the hall.

2) while the movie is schlocky, tim curry really made the character of pennywise his own and did a great job. he is what made it scary, even if most of what made pennywise scary in the book was taken out and the character was reduced in large part to a wise-cracking heckler.

3) that said, in the book pennywise was an absolutely brutal supernatural killing machine who loved taking on the form of your worst nightmare before killing you in a horrible way.

4) in the book, pennywise doesn't just terrorize children. he terrorizes whoever he pleases. iirc, he feeds on them and the fear makes them taste better, so clearly children are a prime target, but not his only target (a lot of his victims are late teens). in the movie, pennywise terrorizes children because he can only feed on people who believe in him, and generally people either never see him and thus stop being prone to believe, or they do see him and die.

5) if they do a new movie with just some jump scares they will have wandered very far from the source material. i do hope that they can do more interesting things with CGI but if pennywise isn't rooted in a real actor it will be lame. i do hope they turn up how brutal pennywise is to be more like the book.


Pretty much that. Still, Tim Curry managed to make that "wisecracking heckler", as you called him, scary as hell, at least when I was a kid. Watching the movie made me want to read the book, and when I read the book all I could say was "Holy shiat, this is a whole fark ton scarier than that movie!"

/was only about 12 when I saw the movie and subsequently read the book.

I've said it before and I will say it again. Masterpiece Theater. All these major books need to be made in full, in multiple episode movies just like they do with Charles Dickens and Charlotte Bronte.
The Harry Potter Books in full. All the under currents, all the sub plots, all the emotion.
The James Bond BOOKS as they should be. Great Spy Stories - Maybe two episodes long. Forget the devices and give us the brains and the brawn.
And a full series of Stephen King books. Not ABC mini series but page for page. Put all the characters back into the stand. Make it 12 hours long like it should have been. The Talismen as it should be. Firestarter as it should have been (A pedophiles dream)
You could toss in the Anne Rice books - They will never get a decent movie of any of her series in any other format.

I loved the book, and the movie sort of disappointed me. It was limited by the fact that it was a TV movie, and a limited budget. The real draw for me wasn't the scares, it was about the relationships within the Losers. THAT was what made the book.

"Maybe there aren't any such things as good friends or bad friends - maybe there are just friends, people who stand by you when you're hurt and who help you feel not so lonely. Maybe they're always worth being scared for, and hoping for, and living for. Maybe worth dying for too, if that's what has to be. No good friends. No bad friends. Only people you want, need to be with; people who build their houses in your heart."
--IT

That was the real heart of the book. The relationships between the kids. The monster? That was what brought them together. What forced them together, but it was sort of like The Body, which turned into Stand By Me. The monster brought them together, gave them a shared purpose, forced them to confront themselves as well as It, but the heart of the book was the kids themselves.

That is what I wanted from the miniseries never really got. Yes, the monster is horrifying, yes it is insidious evil, festering at the heart of the town, and its whispers turn the wheel, but in order to tap into the visceral impact that the book had, it can't be just about the monster. You have to care for Ben. You have to care about Eddie. Bev. Richie. Bill. Mike. Stan. You have to make those kids real, or the whole thing is sort of meh. It's another scary monster threatening kids. If you don't care about the kids, then it's just another goofy critter going booga booga.

You care about those kids, then the viewer is invested. And that is what King did in It, is that the reader was invested in those kids. They weren't just two dimensional projections, but they were deep characters. They had a life, and you cared about them, and that's why the critter was so damn scary. The first chapter, King killed a little kid chasing a paper boat. If the author kills a kid in the first chapter, then for damn sure there's some question about what's going to happen to the characters.

Two full films, they might get that. I hope they do, because the series was flat, I thought. Then again, I loved the book, so I was certainly projecting a lot onto the film and it wasn't realized. Part of that was the cast. Richard Thomas and John Ritter were decent TV properties, but didn't hit the characters. Harry Anderson was close, but still off. Curry was creepy, but never the insidious evil.

Then again, I loved the book, and maybe I projected too much hope for a realization than I should have expected.

burndtdan: sure haven't: I never saw/read 'It' as a kid so I don't have it ingrained in my head that it was a scary movie.
But I watched some of the clip in that article, and man if that isn't the stupidest concept/movie I've ever heard of.

And movies back then could still be scary, but that one did not age well at all I would say.

Why does that entity terrorize children? What's the point? It just doesn't make sense. Maybe back in the 70's (80's?) it worked, but it just seems so... dumb.

I'm sure the remake will be chock full of "scariness" like sudden and harsh sound effects accompanied by tons of CG.

I did read it and see the movie when I was a kid. Allow me to answer some of your questions...

1) you're partly right that it didn't age well, but mostly the problem is that it's a made-for-tv movie. in the realm of made-for-tv movie versions of stephen king stories, it's pretty good. however, adult bill's horrible poneytail really looks absurd now. it reminds me of darill from kids in the hall.

2) while the movie is schlocky, tim curry really made the character of pennywise his own and did a great job. he is what made it scary, even if most of what made pennywise scary in the book was taken out and the character was reduced in large part to a wise-cracking heckler.

3) that said, in the book pennywise was an absolutely brutal supernatural killing machine who loved taking on the form of your worst nightmare before killing you in a horrible way.

4) in the book, pennywise doesn't just terrorize children. he terrorizes whoever he pleases. iirc, he feeds on them and the fear makes them taste better, so clearly children are a prime target, but not his only target (a lot of his victims are late teens). in the movie, pennywise terrorizes children because he can only feed on people who believe in him, and generally people either never see him and thus stop being prone to believe, or they do see him and die.

5) if they do a new movie with just some jump scares they will ...

Thank you and everyone for the replies.Wow, I'm actually considering picking up the book now, noting those differences (which probably explains away most of my issues with it). Not to mention Stephen King is Stephen King for a reason.

I blame It for my fear of street drains. I always keep my distance just in case something is in there.