Entertainment

'Stephen King's IT' Chapter One/Chapter Two movie adaptation

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 20th, 2017 4:16 pm
Tags:
None
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
Jul 23, 2007
8467 posts
1761 upvotes
Toronto

'Stephen King's IT' Chapter One/Chapter Two movie adaptation

With the TV miniseries a quarter century ago, a new movie adaptation is in the works and a villain has been cast

https://variety.com/2015/film/news/will ... 201446495/

The guy kinda looks like Tim Curry if you're not wearing your glasses.
Last edited by jenviea on May 5th, 2015 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
50 replies
Deal Addict
Jan 9, 2011
1340 posts
149 upvotes
Markham
Very interesting.. This movie scared the ***** out of me when I was a kid
Member
Nov 15, 2004
395 posts
76 upvotes
Loved the original TV movie - Jonathan Brandis and John Ritter (both RIP :( )

I only hope this new adaption is as freaky as the original. I still hate clowns.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Oct 22, 2009
10883 posts
1913 upvotes
Toronto
If you guys like Pennywise (the children-eating Clown Monster) from Stephen King's "IT"...then you should check out the indie movie, produced by Eli Roth (who made Cabin Fever, Hostel, Inglorious Basterds...etc.), called "Clown".

I watched it a few weeks ago...and it was pretty good...and dark. It had very similar elements in terms of the Clown....I enjoyed it.


[IMG]http://www.hellhorror.com/assets/Clown-DVD.jpg[/IMG]


Here's the "Clown" movie Trailer for those interested:

~~~~~~~~~~> Get...THAT DEAL...Over Here!!!
Deal Guru
User avatar
Oct 22, 2009
10883 posts
1913 upvotes
Toronto
jenviea wrote:
May 25th, 2015 6:59 pm
Well, this project was short-lived

http://deadline.com/2015/05/cary-fukuna ... 201432650/
That's why my recommendation to watch the movie "Clown" as I suggested in the post above still is a good option to everyone interested. :D

Also, why the heck does this movie deserve a $30 budget???

And Cary Fukunga didn't like that...and wanted more?

This movie can be made for $5 million with the right actors, makeup FX and digital effects studio...there are so many options out there for such a budget and you will get good quality out of it too.

The most important thing are the script, the director's visual style of shooting, soundtrack and makeup effects of Pennywise.

This does not have to be a heavy SFX movie...look at a movie like the Babadook...excellent atmosphere and story and effects for a fraction of the cost.

These Hollywood type self-righteous people sometimes really piss me off.
~~~~~~~~~~> Get...THAT DEAL...Over Here!!!
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 8, 2007
4397 posts
706 upvotes
lol $5 million ........ barely covers the cost of blow.
Mark77 wrote:"All aspiring students should go into the financial services - engineering is, and always has been, a poor choice for our brightest minds ... and TodayHello is my Hero ..."
Hydropwnics wrote:"TodayHello is a certified hustler and original gangster."
Penalty Box
User avatar
Oct 19, 2012
3359 posts
407 upvotes
Toronto
$5 million will only cover the food buffet and cooks's salaries for lunch for the movie filming.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Dec 23, 2006
929 posts
108 upvotes
Oshawa
Scorpionsy wrote:
May 25th, 2015 9:04 pm
That's why my recommendation to watch the movie "Clown" as I suggested in the post above still is a good option to everyone interested. :D

Also, why the heck does this movie deserve a $30 budget???

And Cary Fukunga didn't like that...and wanted more?

This movie can be made for $5 million with the right actors, makeup FX and digital effects studio...there are so many options out there for such a budget and you will get good quality out of it too.

The most important thing are the script, the director's visual style of shooting, soundtrack and makeup effects of Pennywise.

This does not have to be a heavy SFX movie...look at a movie like the Babadook...excellent atmosphere and story and effects for a fraction of the cost.

These Hollywood type self-righteous people sometimes really piss me off.
Not entirely true.

The real issue is that people are used to the blockbusters special effects, which means that lower budget films that are going to have to rely on some SFX to either spend more to make it look believable/real or the audience will complain.

The article is somewhat vague though as it says the budget was $30M, however it doesn't state if that was for the entire project (two films in this case) or just for the first. Given that horror movies usually give a decent return (there are of course a few exceptions, but that usually is due to poor execution) I find it laughable that the studio would scoff and choose to let a director who is currently on the top of their game walk. I think if we are talking $10-20M more I'd agree to those terms.

Annabelle was the top grosser last year of horror films bringing in just over $84M domestically (over $250M worldwide + $9.1M in DVD/BR says domestically). Granted the budget was $6.5M.

Carrie remake had a $30M budget in 2013 and brought in $82.4M worldwide so not a huge box office take, but it was very hit and miss when it came to reviews, which certainly did not help. I think Carrie is a big reason why the studio is being firm with the $30M budget, but whether that is a good or bad decision remains to be seen.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Oct 22, 2009
10883 posts
1913 upvotes
Toronto
TodayHello wrote:
May 25th, 2015 9:49 pm
lol $5 million ........ barely covers the cost of blow.
Gammatron wrote:
May 26th, 2015 2:02 am
$5 million will only cover the food buffet and cooks's salaries for lunch for the movie filming.
venividivici wrote:
May 26th, 2015 3:15 am
Not entirely true.

The real issue is that people are used to the blockbusters special effects, which means that lower budget films that are going to have to rely on some SFX to either spend more to make it look believable/real or the audience will complain.

The article is somewhat vague though as it says the budget was $30M, however it doesn't state if that was for the entire project (two films in this case) or just for the first. Given that horror movies usually give a decent return (there are of course a few exceptions, but that usually is due to poor execution) I find it laughable that the studio would scoff and choose to let a director who is currently on the top of their game walk. I think if we are talking $10-20M more I'd agree to those terms.

Annabelle was the top grosser last year of horror films bringing in just over $84M domestically (over $250M worldwide + $9.1M in DVD/BR says domestically). Granted the budget was $6.5M.

Carrie remake had a $30M budget in 2013 and brought in $82.4M worldwide so not a huge box office take, but it was very hit and miss when it came to reviews, which certainly did not help. I think Carrie is a big reason why the studio is being firm with the $30M budget, but whether that is a good or bad decision remains to be seen.
Blow? Cooks' salaries for food? LOL! You guys must be living in a fantasy world. You can have a budget like 5 or 6 million dollars that covers all that...with the right crew. That's Hollywood for ya, huh? :lol:

Well, venividivici...You just answered yourself....as you said, Annabelle cost $6.5 Million so my range is correct...you can make the movie for $5 million or $6 million budget like how Annabelle was made.

If Annabelle can turn a profit and be made for that amount...so can "IT".

$30 Million is more than enough...even for TWO movies...so the Director was just being a spoilt brat about it. If it were creative differences...fine...but this is about budget. He just wanted more money.

Do you know how many movies had HUGE budgets that were wasted on NOTHING??? And they turned out to be crappy made movies with all that big budget??? A LOT!

Budget is important, sure...but what makes a movie or breaks it is the talent working on it and the Director. His skills can make a shoe-string budget look like a high-value production with the right creativity skills and team behind him.
~~~~~~~~~~> Get...THAT DEAL...Over Here!!!
Deal Guru
User avatar
Oct 22, 2009
10883 posts
1913 upvotes
Toronto
"It" Remake Is Returning To Warner Brothers


"With director Cary Fukunaga departing the project over the holiday weekend, it seemed the two-film adaptation of Stephen King's "It" was done and dusted at New Line, with a subsequent report indicating that the project was indefinitely shelved.

Today, Bloody Disgusting has posted a counter report which says that the project is still alive and moving back to Warner Bros. Pictures after being shifted to New Line.
On top of that the project will keep Fukunaga's plan of being a two-movie format and will be shot in New York City, something Fukunaga was adamant about wanting to do but which New Line was reportedly not keen on due to the expense. With the shift back to Warners though, it seems many of Fukunaga's apparent grievances with the project are being solved.

Does that mean the "True Detective" and "Jane Eyre" helmer might return to the project? Unfortunately the report claims that despite the changes, he will not be back. The studio does intend to use the existing scripts that he and Palmer wrote though.

Whether Warners will keep Will Poulter onboard as Pennywise is also unknown at this point. The studio is reportedly aiming to lock in a new director within the next few weeks and filming aims to kick off before the end of this year."



- Thanks to D.H/Bloody Disgusting
~~~~~~~~~~> Get...THAT DEAL...Over Here!!!

Top