HorrorMovieFans.com

it's success better lead to a good nightmare on elmstreet movie. or else foo's influence argument is bust.

I'm hoping for a good The Stand pt. 1 outta this

zombie wrote:it's success better lead to a good nightmare on elmstreet movie. or else foo's influence argument is bust.

That was actually a criticism of the review from EW. He likened Pennywise too much to Freddy (which NOES has a wink in the film), basically nothing innovative. But what is?

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:it's success better lead to a good nightmare on elmstreet movie. or else foo's influence argument is bust.

That was actually a criticism of the review from EW. He likened Pennywise too much to Freddy (which NOES has a wink in the film), basically nothing innovative. But what is?

Eh. Considering King was writing the book before the first NOES even came out, I don't pay that much mind.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:it's success better lead to a good nightmare on elmstreet movie. or else foo's influence argument is bust.

That was actually a criticism of the review from EW. He likened Pennywise too much to Freddy (which NOES has a wink in the film), basically nothing innovative. But what is?

Eh. Considering King was writing the book before the first NOES even came out, I don't pay that much mind.

We're talking film review.

With being a game changer, this is the most I've seen youtube flooded with bootleg shit all over this movie.

Reign in Blood wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:it's success better lead to a good nightmare on elmstreet movie. or else foo's influence argument is bust.

That was actually a criticism of the review from EW. He likened Pennywise too much to Freddy (which NOES has a wink in the film), basically nothing innovative. But what is?

Eh. Considering King was writing the book before the first NOES even came out, I don't pay that much mind.

We're talking film review.

So this critic thinks Freddy could be the only horror movie villain to use illusion, sick humor, & fear to fuck with victims?

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:it's success better lead to a good nightmare on elmstreet movie. or else foo's influence argument is bust.

That was actually a criticism of the review from EW. He likened Pennywise too much to Freddy (which NOES has a wink in the film), basically nothing innovative. But what is?

Eh. Considering King was writing the book before the first NOES even came out, I don't pay that much mind.

We're talking film review.

So this critic thinks Freddy could be the only horror movie villain to use illusion, sick humor, & fear to fuck with victims?

Tier 1, baby.

Just saw the whole Georgie death scene. Agree with Jason, not dig compared to the OG, he blackmailed him into it in the end. No luring charm or charisma to be had. More sinister and shit? Sure. Not shitting on the new approach btw.

Really wasn't paying attention to this wall of text tier argument

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Really wasn't paying attention to this wall of text tier argument

Tier lives matter, damnit!

Tall Man, baby!

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Oh, for additional fun of being called a son of a bitch, I started using this Pennywise voice on Alli. Mwahahahahaha.

I can do spot on Tim Curry Pennywise and I'm not joking about this.

Reign in Blood wrote:Just saw the whole Georgie death scene. Agree with Jason, not dig compared to the OG, he blackmailed him into it in the end. No luring charm or charisma to be had. More sinister and shit? Sure. Not shitting on the new approach btw.

They definitely botched that scene, imo. Georgie remake Pennywise is a creepy clown being creepy, Georgie original Pennywise is a creepy clown with character who is using a personality to earn the trust of an unsuspecting little shit. The whole reason Georgie even speaks to Pennywise in the original is because he is a fun-loving clown. The remake scene was created with the audience reaction in mind. Can't do that in horror. There is never an audience. Only the characters in the movie. That should always be the approach.

But I fully expected this to be the case going in, anyway. Given what they'd shown of him, there was no way the new Pennywise was even coming close to Curry. Still worth seeing for sure.

Jason wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:Just saw the whole Georgie death scene. Agree with Jason, not dig compared to the OG, he blackmailed him into it in the end. No luring charm or charisma to be had. More sinister and shit? Sure. Not shitting on the new approach btw.

They definitely botched that scene, imo. Georgie remake Pennywise is a creepy clown being creepy, Georgie original Pennywise is a creepy clown with character who is using a personality to earn the trust of an unsuspecting little shit. The whole reason Georgie even speaks to Pennywise in the original is because he is a fun-loving clown. The remake scene was created with the audience reaction in mind. Can't do that in horror. There is never an audience. Only the characters in the movie. That should always be the approach.

But I fully expected this to be the case going in, anyway. Given what they'd shown of him, there was no way the new Pennywise was even coming close to Curry. Still worth seeing for sure.

a good horror should work on both levels, for the audience and for the characters. but it shouldn't be obvious and take you out of it. like halloween, when michael myers rises behind laurie. that was completely for the audience, but it was done in a way that fit the movie. it wasn't done obvious, at the movie's expense.

I'm not saying it shouldn't work for the audience, I'm just saying the way Pennywise behaved in the Georgie remake scene was purely for the audience and not for Georgie. Tim Curry ain't give a fuck about no audience. he wanted to eat a child.

Jason wrote: The remake scene was created with the audience reaction in mind. Can't do that in horror. There is never an audience. Only the characters in the movie. That should always be the approach.

lulz, Hitchcock and his disciples will tell you otherwise. It's always told for the audience. Hitchcock will show the audience the bomb the character is sitting on and the character doesn't know it. It's called suspense and good horror thrives on it (or swaps out for awesome amounts of buckets of gore). The miniseries failed miserably in the suspense department and coasted on Curry's fun to cover for the lack of any teeth it had due to what they had to hold back to keep a TV rating (even Salem's Lot 79 felt less made for TV than It 1990 did). The new one has suspense, and showing the audience that Pennywise is sinister, even though Georgie clearly warmed up to him pretty quick, is not far from the Hitchcock playbook. It didn't need to play the deception game of making us wonder if he's a good guy (that's just assuming the audience is stupid unless it's a plot twist for later), it's more waiting in suspense for when the snake it going to strike after hypnotizing its prey.

While I like Sophia Lillis's suggestion of who she'd like to see play the older Bev, Jessica Chastain, I really think her eyes look a lot more like Amy Adams, so Amy would be more believable as an adult Bev to me.

SPOILER****************since I can't get the code to work *************

So what happened to Vic and Belch? I noticed that it was Belch's car the gang drove around in, and since Henry is only seen driving it after knifing his dad when Pennywise finally convinced him to "kill them all"...I wonder if he killed his friends Vic and Belch before going after the Loser's club? It's not answered, could be a plot hole if never mentioned in the second half, but my head totally fills in that he killed them, full psychopath mode (which I dug, again because it's much closer to the book)


Also fun note: Belch sports an Anthrax shirt, with a song that references The Stand.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

Jason wrote: The remake scene was created with the audience reaction in mind. Can't do that in horror. There is never an audience. Only the characters in the movie. That should always be the approach.

lulz, Hitchcock and his disciples will tell you otherwise. It's always told for the audience. Hitchcock will show the audience the bomb the character is sitting on and the character doesn't know it. It's called suspense and good horror thrives on it (or swaps out for awesome amounts of buckets of gore). The miniseries failed miserably in the suspense department and coasted on Curry's fun to cover for the lack of any teeth it had due to what they had to hold back to keep a TV rating (even Salem's Lot 79 felt less made for TV than It 1990 did). The new one has suspense, and showing the audience that Pennywise is sinister, even though Georgie clearly warmed up to him pretty quick, is not far from the Hitchcock playbook. It didn't need to play the deception game of making us wonder if he's a good guy (that's just assuming the audience is stupid unless it's a plot twist for later), it's more waiting in suspense for when the snake it going to strike after hypnotizing its prey.

I don't think I'm explaining my point of view well enough.

I realize the stories are told for the audience, but I'm talking about this specific opening scene compared to the original. The basic character interaction. When I'm watching Curry in the Georgie scene I'm watching character manipulation and voice acting at its finest. He is trying to convince Georgie that he's not creepy and the remake Pennywise is trying to convince the audience that he is creepy. And the kid is still somehow lured in. Completely goes against why Georgie is even talking to a clown in a sewer in the first place.