Connect with us

Editorials

‘IT’ is the Rare Remake That Actually Feels Necessary

Sometimes, you have to be honest with your nostalgia.

In the wake of the IT teaser trailer hitting the net, I am incredibly excited to see Andy Muschietti’s vision for the Stephen King novel up on the big screen – but that’s an excitement that I personally felt long before I ever saw a single frame of the movie. For starters, I’m a huge fan of Mama, which proved that Muschietti is adept at making a pretty damn scary horror flick. But perhaps more importantly, I was excited that King’s novel was getting another adaptation because, well, I’m just going to come right out and say it: the book was not done any sort of justice back in 1990.

Director Tommy Lee Wallace’s lengthy miniseries adaptation of IT is easily the most beloved horror movie to ever debut on the small screen; Tim Curry’s portrayal of Pennywise, in particular, is still dishing out nightmares at a steady clip to this very day. There’s no denying that Curry was incredible in the role that Bill Skarsgard is taking over for Muschietti’s two-film adaptation, but the high points of the 1990 miniseries almost entirely begin and end with his talents.

What I’m trying to say is, there’s a reason most don’t remember much of anything about the adaptation aside from the fact that Curry, as Pennywise, was truly nightmarish. Many fans tend to have a nostalgic connection to the miniseries because they saw it when they were young, but when you revisit it in the present day, one thing becomes immediately clear: it’s a poor telling of a really great story, made iconic only by an unforgettable performance from the great character actor of a generation. Take Curry out of the mix and, well, let’s just be glad he was in it.

Of course, this is only my opinion, but a recent revisit of IT 1990 (just last year) admittedly let me wondering why the miniseries is even as beloved as it is; to an even greater extent, it left me wondering why the hell anyone was up in arms when the new adaptation was announced. And it’s not even that the special effects don’t look so great today, which many tend to hold against it when they revisit; if anything, the dated effects give the miniseries a charm that I can’t help but love. It’s more that the story is poorly conveyed and executed, the acting is shoddy, and it all around feels very much like what it is: a made-for-TV movie. It’s incredibly corny, and not just by today’s standards. And though it has its moments, it’s mostly just plain bad.

Furthermore, my most recent revisit made me realize that even Pennywise himself is poorly brought to the screen in the 1990 miniseries. Sure, Curry is fantastic and the costuming/makeup is exceptional, but Tommy Lee Wallace does a pretty bad job of actually making Pennywise scary; he’s more whimsical than he is threatening, and as a result, the incredible fear that the characters feel – both as children and later as adults – does not at all translate to what you’ve actually seen for yourself. It all comes off as being silly, awkward, and amateurish.

But my intention with this post wasn’t to sit here for an hour trashing the work Tommy Lee Wallace did back in 1990; it’s beloved for a reason, and it makes me happy that so many fans hold it so near and dear. Rather, I wanted to point to its flaws to illustrate that Stephen King’s IT, maybe more than any other iconic horror property out there, is in desperate need of a proper adaptation. As horror fans, we’ve become accustomed to perfect movies from the past being greenlit for remakes/reboots/re-adaptations, but IT is the rare film that actually warrants one. And now that I’ve seen the trailer for Muschietti’s rated R adaptation, holy shit has that become crystal clear to me.

Muschietti’s IT looks genuinely terrifying, and with King’s decades-spanning story being spread across two completely separate feature films, I’ve got a good feeling that it’s going to be done the epic justice that it has long deserved. If we’re all being honest with ourselves, the 1990 adaptation left much to be desired. And if you’re asking me, that makes it as ripe for a fresh new take as any piece of entertainment has ever been. Tommy Lee Wallace’s hands were tied when he made his TV miniseries. Muschietti, however, doesn’t appear to be holding anything back.

We may very well be in store for one of the great horror remakes of all time.



COMMENTS

168 Comments
  • Aaron King

    The mini-series was good for it’s time. Apart from Curry the performances of the kids are also strong and the first half is arguably the superior and more satisfying out of the two. It’s overall a fun watch, but not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination. This new adaptation has the potential to be what that earlier one could’ve been.

  • Zachary Brown

    Can’t. Friggin. Wait.

  • Zachary Brown

    And yes it is in desperate need of a proper adaptation. i will always feel nostalgic about the TV miniseries, but they had to cut soooooooo much out for rating reasons.

  • Rohan

    I think that the 1990 version of it is scarier because it looks like a normal clown, until it morphs into a nightmare creature.

    • theundead

      Ok just stick with the originals and don’t watch the remake

      • Rohan

        Just sayin that maybe it’s scarier to not try to look scary. Still excited to see it though, Mama and It are a pretty good match.

        • Sean Robert Hart

          Ya that could turn out to be true. My issue with the ney pennywise is just his 16 head looks really weird.

        • theundead

          I see

  • Richter Belmont

    I am really curious as to how they’re going to approach the *ahem* ‘ritual scene’ from the novel, or if they’re going to completely excise it like they did for the miniseries. I can’t imagine that scene going over very well with an audience unfamiliar with the source material. Heck, I still can’t figure out why King wrote that part in.

    • Khy

      Director confirmed they won’t have that scene. Not surprised- even in an R rated adaptation its hard to get away with and honestly is it even truly needed? Bev could kiss each boy instead of having hardcore sex with all of them lol.

      I think it’s safe to say King was probably high or drunk when he wrote that portion lol.

      • Sweet Reaper

        There is definitely a more appropriate way to show on screen how the kids use their love for each other and strength as a unit to defeat IT that does not involve a gang bang.

    • Fifty Shades of Aunt May

      Wonder if we will see a giant turtle too

    • uriah369

      Hopefully they just cut it as it’s unnecessary for the storyline.

    • Rick D

      Maybe end movie with scene, next movie starts as grown ups reminiscing…….

    • Jacob Blevins

      Yeah that was a very disturbing part of the book. I think thats what makes Stephen King one of the best horror writers ever. That feeling I got was true horror.

  • Khy

    When Part 2 releases I look forward to having like a 5 hour marathon of the miniseries and the two new movies. Gonna be a lot of fun.

    • I haven’t watched the TV version in a loooong time. I’m thinking of giving it a spin tonight.

      • Saturn

        Prepare to have your childhood memories quashed!
        It really doesn’t stand up as well as you probably remember it (sadly).

  • diapers

    Haven’t seen IT since the original TV broadcast. I did watch The Stand this year though, found it to be at times very painful. Wouldn’t mind seeing another take on that one, somehow, somewhere.

    • darkduo

      yeah I loved The Stand mini-series but it would be great if it could be redone with a better cast

  • jv

    Tim Curry was so good as IT that I could care less if the movie had its faults!! And the movie is called IT and that was an great job by curry and the rest of the cast was fine yes there were problems in that movie but i just can’t see this new IT being better!! I will go see it with a clear mind will see!!

    • Wolf Myers

      “couldn’t care less” you mean.

      • jv

        What are you my teacher? get a life! but i could care less

  • jasonlives1986

    This article is beyond pointless.

    This movie isn’t a remake of IT

    It’s an adaptation of the book Stephen Kings IT

    You can’t remake a movie based on a book. Only adapt the book again.

    • Brando

      This puts my mind to the newer True Grit; The Coens said they weren’t just remaking the John Wayne movie, but re-adapting the book, but it wasn’t as faithful to the book as the old one.
      I’ve been fan of the It miniseries since I was a kid and it’s still cheesy and fun, but I’m wholeheartedly looking forward to this new version as well!

      • Justin McGill

        I think part I holds up well.. part II work the adults just did not work for me. There was such a great cast but it felt kind of aimless.

      • Sean Robert Hart

        Ya it was still a remake. Does anyone understand the word remake?????? They made a true grit movie before and then they made another true grit movie starting from scratch again…… the story was RETOLD. And the movie was REMADE. Why does everyone think a remake means an updated but frame to frame replica of a movie? It isnt it just means that they made one previously and now they are making one again. Shouldnt be that hard to understand

    • Jack Derwent

      “You can’t remake a movie based on a book.”

      You can if you are copying the film over the book. See: Let Me In which borrowed concepts and scenes that were only in the Swedish film of ‘Let the Right One In’ and not the book.

      • Matt-fBR

        Exactly. See ‘Carrie 2013’ as another example of this.

        In fact, the 2013 version of Carrie is an odd case of a project that began on the right foot (re-adapting the novel with a big screen budget and high profile cast) and ended up a total unnecessary cookie cutter modernization of DePalma’s movie…
        At least with ‘It’ this doesn’t seem to be the case…

      • Wolf Myers

        Very true Jack. But they aren’t basing the movie from the 1990 mini-series. They are basing it off the book. Watch the trailer again. There is a clue in there. Look out for the part it says:

        “from Stephen King’s terrifying novel”

        It is not a remake whatsoever. The people at Bloody Disgusting are just young guys who genuinely believe IT (2017) is a remake from a non existent movie.

      • jasonlives1986

        I mean. Maybe if they did but they wouldn’t.

        This film is gonna adapt the book in its own way. I doubt it’s taking cues from the movie. Which is really just 4 tv episodes

    • Sean Robert Hart

      Yes it is a remake… they made an it movie in the 90s….. and now they are making one in 2017. IT IS A REMAKE R-E-M-A-K-E. Just because it is going to be closer to the book than the original does not detract from the point that they are remaking an it movie. The IT movie is being REMADE! deal with it lol

      • jasonlives1986

        Wrong.

        • Sean Robert Hart

          You sure are

        • Sean Robert Hart

          You sure are

  • thegunshow

    This definitely needed to be remade. I’d also like to see a proper remake of Salem’s Lot.

    • uriah369

      Holy crap that scared me as a kid! Barlow was nightmare fuel for me for many years.

      • thegunshow

        No kidding. One of he best looking vampires ever put to film in my opinion, but I’d love to see a modern take that isn’t made for TV.

        • uriah369

          A good, scary R rated movie would be great!

      • Saturn

        I remember watching the original Salem’s Lot when it was first shown on British tv in 1981 (I would have been about 7 at the time – an my mum was cool enough to let me watch it!) and still remember just has scary the damn thing was (I think we all know which particular scenes I’m talking about) – I actually miss that buzz of a movie actually “scaring” me. I had seen vampire movies before of course, Hammer and Universal mainly, but for me Kurt Barlow is most certainly the scariest vampire put on screen – he just oozes death and the plague (obviously he’s based on Nosferatu – but is more effective, for me anyway). I can only imagine what he’d think of these watered down romantic vampires we get so much of these days.
        Give me more vampires of his ilk, and those of 30 Days Of Night – enough with the “sensual vampire” crap.

    • DBZEROGRAVITY

      I liked the remake with rob lowe but they definitely needed to bring back the original barlow look

    • Saturn

      Do you not consider the Rob Lowe version as “proper” remake?

      I haven’t seen that one in a while (I’ve only watched it once, where-as the Tobe Hooper one I’ve seen dozens of times over the years – kinda gives it away which I prefer……)

  • Creepshow

    No one has seen this story on the big screen. Therefore, this is not a remake. Enjoy yourselves at the theater, everyone!

    • uriah369

      Hopefully we will.

  • American Atheist

    The Lawnmower Man could use a proper remake (3-D / IMAX). Then again, it’d probably be a giant CGI shit-fest.

    • uriah369

      Indeed

    • Justin McGill

      Umm.. no.. Unless you are remaking the very very very loose adaptation. Adapting the story requires a house.. an old school push lawnmower, a greasy naked fat guy eating grass.. a guy that gets decapitated and a couple other characters. Six minutes tops.

      • American Atheist

        1992

      • Saturn

        What? It’s as you’re saying the the movie “based” on Stephen King’s short story is NOTHING at all like the story!
        Ahem.

  • WALKTER

    I can’t get over that new look they went with for Pennywise, everytime I see it I think Boo!! I’m scary!! be scared!! I get the feeling the movie’s going to blow it’s wad too soon like Mama.

  • ScriptGiverrrr

    This isn’t a remake. Stop calling it that.

  • Rick D

    Be nice if Tim Curry was to do a cameo

    • darkduo

      Not sure he’s be able to at the moment but maybe by the time they start filming the second part he might feel up to it

  • Grendal Sven

    I agree 100% with the point Squires is trying to make, I too recently revisited the old series and was pretty taken aback by how poorly it had aged. I read the book after that one first came out and immediately discovered it had barely scratched the surface of the potential held within.

  • Jack Derwent

    This isn’t saying anything that hasn’t already been said a hundred times now. That being said I think Part 1 still holds up as genuinely good movie in regards to the acting of Tim Curry and the kids. Part 2 is when it falls part.

  • Bloodspatta

    We all love the TV movie. We all love Tim Curry, however it’s become dated, cheesy and doesn’t even touch a lot of the book that it looks like the remake is going to. The new film is very welcome as the book wasn’t done ANY justice with the TV film.

    • Chance LeBoeuf

      I only love Tim Curry. Never liked the TV movie. This remake might actually be ‘IT’.

    • Bob Marshall

      I agree but will say this, I’d rather they didn’t go too much like the book IF it damages to the movies coherence or narrative. I often think people need to let go of the source material when they make adaptations. Sometimes what works in a book may not work cinematically and vice versa. I think the original and maybe even this new version using more Pennywise makes sense for a movie version.

      • lincoln sinclair

        If they go too much like the book then there will be scenes I’ll never be able to make myself watch. The vision of Pennywise chewing his lips off with razorblade teeth being one of them. Ughh! So from that perspective, I agree.

        • That is exactly the scene that always terrified me most. Read it in middle school, came back to it 15 years later and it was word for word how I recalled. KEEEEEEE-RUNCH.

  • cinetredici

    For me, IT was one of the first movies/tv shows that I remember being able to watch and be genuinely scared by. I was young when it was released, and my parents were kinda religious and refused to let me watch most horror films. My formative years were made up mostly of sneaking away from my mom and dad at the local video store and wandering over to the horror section and staring wide eyed at all the box art. I was allowed to watch IT because it was on TV and my parents figured it couldn’t be too bad. Even as a kid, I remember thinking it suffered a bit from Stripes Syndrome (the first half being significantly better than the second half, so much so that you tend to forget the second half happened) but I was terrified. And it was glorious.

  • McGilli

    I only finally read It within the last year. I remember when I finished – I was absolutely convinced that It was also Andre Linoge from Storm Of The Century. There were so many similarities with things they said and what they could do and situations like voices in the drains from the book It where the person says It said it is Legion… Anyways read a ton of sites debunking that – but I still do think that if Storm Of The Century had been released as a proper book and fleshed out there would have been a connection made…

    • Jimmy Cthulhuhan

      King rehashes a lot of stuff. Both intentionally and not… it’s hard to sort the two out sometimes.

  • Posterity

    Thank god for this article. If I saw one more comment saying how “untouchable” the original was I think my head was going to spin off. That tv movie was atrocious and Pennywise was just goofy. The only thing more frustrating than the undeserved hype on the miniseries is the fact that most people clearly have never read the book.

    • Jimmy Cthulhuhan

      First I ever heard of anyone calling the tv movie untouchable. Curry’s part, maybe. I’d never think he couldn’t be replaced or even improved upon, but he was pretty spot on with the book (in which he was actually quite “goofy”) for his part and will be hard to beat accuracy-wise. But, not the movie as a whole. Seems to be unanimously considered mediocre, or “decent for a tv movie” at best. Nostalgic “love” perhaps.

  • Yesterday I saw IT for the first time. In my opinion it’s a nice movie but the storytelling wasn’t the best, the director could do a scariest film.
    I liked the first part when the protagonists were little kids, sometimes reminded​ me A Nightmare on Elm Street (one of my favorite horror movies), but the quality decreased in the second part when the kids grow up and try to fight Pennywise, it’s hard to explain my complex opinion in English because I’m portuguese, but I noticed a lack of good dialogues and good character development during the 2nd part.

    I searched and I know there are some fantasy and sci-fi elements in the original book and they should forget that, because IT just needs a good storytelling and a amazing villain to be scary and good, the sci-fi and the fantasy elements will turn the movie less scary. I think some fans disagree with me but it’s just my opinion.

    Btw, Pennywise​ is a nice character, but sometimes looks too funny and easy to kill, I hope the “new” Pennywise be more scary, darker and powerful.

    IT 1st part: 7.5/10
    IT 2nd part: 5.5/10
    Overall: 6.5/10

    • Bob Marshall

      I agree with this, I think the original mini series worked best when they were kids. That’s why I am glad they’re doing two films, one as kids, one as adults because at least if I don’t like the adults part it will be a seperate film.

  • Tiger Quinn

    I’m not sure where the idea that the original was so perfect came from in the first place – Curry’s version of Pennywise is fantastic of course, but the rest of that movie? Not so great. The entire third act in particular is just painful.

    • Skyler Russell

      The entire third act of the book is painful.

      • Tiger Quinn

        It’s definitely a casualty of King’s admitted substance problems – the child gangbang, the Deadlights….I love the novel so much, but there is a lot of wtf at the end of that book.

  • darkduo

    It’s not really a remake as they aren’t remaking the mini-series but readapting the book. Either way though it’s going to be awesome

    • Thank you! This is what I’ve been trying to explain to friends. It’s the same as people thinking Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a remake of the 71 film.

      • DucksonAPlain

        But Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a remake of the ’71 film. They said it wasn’t to try to trick people into watching the movie, but then it’s got more to do with that movie than it does the book. I mean, did you see any musical numbers in the book or any reason that the Oompa Loompas needed to be super creepy?

  • Bob Marshall

    As much as I agree that Stephen King’s IT desperately needs an update and that the trailer looks phenomenal, I think it’s gets to not get too carried away. As good as it looks we have had great trailers for films before only to be let down when the full movie comes out. I don’t think it’s fair to the movie to put unnecessary pressure on it aswel. Just looks forward to it but as with everything keep expectations in check.

  • Prince Of Darkness

    IT the miniseries was a celebration of cheesiness. 16 to 18 year old Seth Green playing a ten year old. Tim Curry is a very good actor but even his stuff came off as over the top and camp (and not in a good way). Then you had John Boy Walton and Jack Tripper ripping apart a fake spider. IT was what IT was: and attempt by ABC to beat Murder She Wrote in the ratings. It’s like the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre. People go on and on about how bloody and gory it was when there is almost no blood at all in the film. It’s one of those things where people jump on the bandwagon and lament how scary IT was when it was anything but. Now this remake will probably be better, but in a few years people will realize that it also falls short. When the hype wears off, they will begin to see what it isn’t. People are spazzing out over this because they want to spazz out over something. In the end if you really want to experience the story in all IT’s glory, turn off the TV and read the novel.

  • Wolf Myers

    IT (2017) is not a remake.

    Let me elaborate as to why IT (2017) is not a remake. Let’s look at Dukes of Hazzard (2005). This is an example of a TV Show remade into a movie. Similar to IT (2017) you are probably thinking? No. Wrong. Dukes of Hazzard is classed as a remake, ONLY because the souce material is coming directly from the old TV Show.

    Now the source material for IT (2017) is not coming from the Mini-Series. It is coming from the book.

    A lot of people (mainly younger) think that IT (1990) is a movie when it is actually a TV Mini-series. Some of those people wonder why the “movie” is over 3 hours long… If only they knew it wasn’t a movie.

    How many people call The Lord of the Rings Trilogy a remake? Probably none.

    People only see IT as a remake because they grew up thinking the mini-series was a movie.

    To confirm, IT (2017) is based on the book by Stephen King. It is not based on the 1990 mini-series. For IT (2017) to be a remake, it would have to be based off the mini-series. They are NOT remaking the mini-series. They are, for the FIRST TIME, making a feature length movie from the Novel. Heck, it even states it in the trailer!

    And finally, Warner Bros have NOT stated this is a remake. Stop calling it a remake. You are supposed to be smart, Bloody Disgusting!

    • Sean Robert Hart

      Thats nice but your wrong. Just google remake definition

      • Wolf Myers

        Yes which means you must agree with me. It is not a remake. It is not a remake of the mini-series.

        • Sean Robert Hart

          It is a remake of the book

          • Sean Robert Hart

            The book has already been made for the tv and it is being once again made for the big screen and then will be on tv. This is actually a fun debate lol

          • Wolf Myers

            Even IMDB doesn’t count it as a remake. Only young fans.

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Lol yes only young fans…….. i have socks older than you. My kids have socks older than you. They also have more valid arguments

          • Wolf Myers

            A remake of a book? So you are saying IT (2017) is a book? OK then.

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Lol NO. The book is being made once again using the same format ”film”. They are using a book to make a film which has already been done in the past. Which is why it is a remake. A remake is not a carbon copy

    • Sean Robert Hart

      It the remake is based on the book by stephen king and so was the original. Wheb someone creates a film that has already been adapted to screen before no matter how loosely. Its considered a remake

      • Wolf Myers

        Not it is not. I don’t consider it a remake. Warner Bros don’t consider it a remake. You however, do.

        • Sean Robert Hart

          Of course wb will say it isnt a remake that will stir up buzz for the film by having people debate it on the internet lol

          • Wolf Myers

            I have given my explanation as to why it is not a remake. Let me hear your explanation.

          • PsychoMantis18

            Sometimes you gotta give up on the stupid. Hope that they die out.

          • Wolf Myers

            There is hope for everyone lol.

    • Sean Robert Hart

      And IT was a TV MOVIE not a tv show

      • Wolf Myers

        It wasn’t a movie. It was a mini-series. Like Band of Brothers.

        • Sean Robert Hart

          It was a 2 part made for tv movie. The new one is a 2 part made for theatres movie.

    • DucksonAPlain

      Please, take you’re medication. This argument is extremely pointless and you’re going to have an episode. You don’t want to go back to that place, do you?

      • Wolf Myers

        Love your explanation. It doesn’t hold up on your side though, does it?

    • SpacemanSpliffz

      you will never get a person to touch your penis, like ever.

      • THE God

        neither will you. Sad.

    • lincoln sinclair

      Damn, that actually sort of makes sense now. I’ve probably just had too much to drink.

  • Sean Robert Hart

    The original was a great movie and i cant wait to see this new take on the book. Geez i guess the bandwagon for hating on the tv movie passed me by. Or maybe im just not a snob with no respect. The original was and will always be a classic. I just hope this new version takes it from a different perspective.

    • Wolf Myers

      There isn’t an original movie. You may be confused. There was a TV Mini-Series from 1990 you might be referring to. This movie is not a remake of the 1990 Mini-series. This movie is a first time movie.

      • Sean Robert Hart

        Keep telling yourself that. Im going to end this because if i keep banging my head on the wall any longer i will have to do a shitload of mudding and taping and i dont like that

        • Wolf Myers

          Ah sorry. Didn’t realise you were so young. This explains a lot.

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Lol thats a good one coming from someone who still uses the term homework

          • Wolf Myers

            Yes, meaning i’m old.

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Uhhh ya good call now go finish your homework before mom and dad find out that your failing film lit

  • Sean Robert Hart
    • Wolf Myers

      Now point us in the direction of an IT movie before 2017? And also point us in the direction of the movie being based of this imaginary movie and not the book.

      • Sean Robert Hart

        Omfg the previous film WAS A MOVIE holy shit its like arguing with a cat

        • Wolf Myers

          This isn’t an argument. I am asking you to show proof of a previous movie that the new movie is based on. You cannot do this. Therefore IT (2017) is not a remake.

          This movie is based off a Stephen King novel called IT. It is not based off a TV mini-series. Please do your homework.

          • Sean Robert Hart

            A remake isnt a film based on the previous film it is a retelling. Go do your homework child i think the word your looking for is reeboot.

          • Wolf Myers

            The word you are looking for is reboot. It is not a reboot either. It has nothing to do with the mini-series.

            It is an adaptation of a novel. You just aren’t understanding.

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Lol i would droo the mic but from way up here it might shatter the pavement

          • PsychoMantis18

            You should’ve stopped long ago.

          • THE God

            I don’t think you get what he was trying to say… comprehension is a b*tch!

          • PsychoMantis18

            Already got it, thanks.

            And comprehension isn’t a bitch, but being on the other side of it is – oh snap!

          • Sean Robert Hart

            You shouldnt have started

          • PsychoMantis18

            Why’s that?

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Sorry already had one debate on the topic and it ended. Im not pressing my luck by assuming you are as mature as the fellow i was talking with before. Thanks for the reply though. Cheers

          • PsychoMantis18

            You snowflakes are pathetic.

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Lol my point exactly thanks troll

          • PsychoMantis18

            Know you are but what am I?

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Drop**

          • Sean Robert Hart

            They are both adaptations of a novel genious.

          • Wolf Myers

            You mean Genius, genius. And yes, they are both adaptations of a novel.

          • Sean Robert Hart
          • J.J. rdz

            Coming from a person who does not capitalizes their I.

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Lol did your siren break? I didnt even hear the grammar police vehicle pull up. I am typing on a tiny phone get over it.

          • J.J. rdz

            Wow, I didn’t even know it was a touchy subject. My bad.

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Did your uncle realize you were a touchy subject?

          • J.J. rdz

            I don’t know?.. Did yours?

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Im not sure, why did he touch you? You should talk to a pro on that one

          • J.J. rdz

            Like I’m going to take advise from a guy who does not capitalize their I(s). You are funny.

          • J.J. rdz

            I’m seriously asking.

          • Sean Robert Hart

            I know first i need to know where my uncle touched you though

          • J.J. rdz

            Capitalize that “I” then I will tell you. ; )

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Learn to spell first deal?

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Just always remember to capitalizes your I ok?

          • J.J. rdz

            I see you took my advise, see you never. Lmao

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Advice… advice!

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Maybe check your grammar before correcting others

          • J.J. rdz

            I would but first end your sentences with a period.

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Lol ya it seems im not the only one who missed the point on that one period

          • Sean Robert Hart

            If only your mother had not missed hers we wouldnt be having this debate.

          • J.J. rdz

            Period joke…that is bloody clever.

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Hahaha im actually starting to like you

          • J.J. rdz

            Same here. Well see you later.

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Cheers bud

          • Sean Robert Hart

            Cheers bud!

          • Sean Robert Hart

            A person who does not capitalizes their I? Nuff said

  • Daniel Anderson

    I didn’t read for the sake of spoilers. Although I can’t put my finger on it if it was simply Tim Curry’s familiar voice or just the fact in its setting it was haunting, I hope the new IT/Pennywise has a voice that has a similar effect.

  • Ronnie Perlman

    i cant wait to see the remake of the older movie but neither are going to follow the book and will only cherry pick elements, which is fine. how many dracula films have we had at this point? quite a few great remakes there.

    • Bill Agans

      it’s actually an adaptation of the book. they even stated that they’re followin’ the book closely.

  • Fracassi

    Holy crap – Steven Williams is playing Mike Hanlon’s dad! I hope he gets at least 5 minutes of screen time.

  • Chip

    *Looks down at the amazingly anal retentive Remake/NotRemake arguments*

    …Yeesh.

    • Fracassi

      Yep.

  • BelmontPublicLibrary

    How dare you!

  • Betafett

    The remake/not remake argument is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen on BD. That’s a helluva feat. Do carry on with your pedantic semantic antics.

    • Bryano

      “pedantic semantic antics” would be a good band name…

  • The Drucifer

    In response to the remake/readaptation argument I present this: LOUD NOISES!

  • The Drucifer

    No one wants the gangbang. No one.

  • Abandoned_Being

    All this childish behavior over a damn movie is quite pathetic.

  • Shawn Simpson

    No what we want Satanzilla as purists is for the nightmarish shit in the books to see the screen, for Henry Bowers to not be a one note typical bully but the fucked little shit stain he is in the book, we want to see each childs nightmares made real by Pennywise. No one wants the gang bang because even as much as most of us love the book that part is a bit too much. The original mini series didn’t bring any of the dread or tension the book did…thats the entire problem with it. It feels like IT being read for children…we want IT read by Stephen King himself.

    • “feels like IT being read for children…we want IT read by Stephen King himself”—awesomely said

  • Brett

    I’m not so sure the IT miniseries is the most beloved small screen adaptation. I thoroughly disagree – I think the original “Salem’s Lot” series is much better and much scarier.

    • Hank_Scorpio

      Seconded.

      I’d even say The Stand was better.

  • DAWnofthedead 91

    I think the biggest factor is “remake-fatigue,” to be honest, given how many remakes have come out in the past decade-and-a-half. Then, of course, there are all of the highlights of movie remakes that we’ve been treated to so far: movies that are pretty much the same product, excessive CGI, more violence and/or blood, and of course the necessity to place jump-scares in films that can’t manage the atmosphere of the original.

    I’ve not seen the original since I was about eight, and haven’t read the book, so all I really have to contribute is that I hope it doesn’t fall to every modern horror movie cliche.

  • aFriendlyAgenda

    “We all love the TV movie. We all love Tim Curry,”

    Its got nostalgia appeal
    But its got room for improvement all over the place

    None of the King stories have been done to call it game other then Kubrick’s Shining
    And creepshow

    Its not the same as some axxhole remaking a classic just to dumb it down

this week in horror

This Week in Horror - August 7, 2017

The hard copy of Friday the 13th: The Game is coming, Sarah Paulson joins M. Night Shyamalan's Glass, and Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark gets a re-release with the original art.

Posted by Bloody Disgusting on Monday, August 7, 2017
Advertisement

CURATED CONTENT

More in Editorials