HorrorMovieFans.com

They got that part right about Ben. He was a loner who spent a lot of time in the library. Mike's history lessons came from his father. A very likeable character I was sad to see was left out.

Monster wrote:They got that part right about Ben. He was a loner who spent a lot of time in the library. Mike's history lessons came from his father. A very likeable character I was sad to see was left out.

Wouldn't have worked in this context then, given that his father died in a fire early on in his life, and his grandfather was visibly a bit of a sadistic twat.

It is a valid criticism, but only in the context of how true to the source material it was. Definitely didn't strike me as something you have to critique in the film context itself.

showa58taro wrote:

Monster wrote:They got that part right about Ben. He was a loner who spent a lot of time in the library. Mike's history lessons came from his father. A very likeable character I was sad to see was left out.

Wouldn't have worked in this context then, given that his father died in a fire early on in his life, and his grandfather was visibly a bit of a sadistic twat.

It is a valid criticism, but only in the context of how true to the source material it was. Definitely didn't strike me as something you have to critique in the film context itself.

I don't fault the movie for changing things up like that. To do mike's dad justice they would've had to go into his back story. Movie would've lost its flow. A long, rich book like that is going to lose a lot in any adaptation. Unavoidable. Mike's dad, the smoke hole and the coming of IT were all things things from the book I'd like to see, but understand why they were left out.

Monster wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Monster wrote:They got that part right about Ben. He was a loner who spent a lot of time in the library. Mike's history lessons came from his father. A very likeable character I was sad to see was left out.

Wouldn't have worked in this context then, given that his father died in a fire early on in his life, and his grandfather was visibly a bit of a sadistic twat.

It is a valid criticism, but only in the context of how true to the source material it was. Definitely didn't strike me as something you have to critique in the film context itself.

I don't fault the movie for changing things up like that. To do mike's dad justice they would've had to go into his back story. Movie would've lost its flow. A long, rich book like that is going to lose a lot in any adaptation. Unavoidable. Mike's dad, the smoke hole and the coming of IT were all things things from the book I'd like to see, but understand why they were left out.

Chud was apparently left out not due to disrupting the flow, but due to budget constraints, according to what I've read. Shame, as this movie really could have used it.

As I said, I enjoyed this movie quite a bit, and more then the 1990 mini-series, but it still needed an extra hour and a half. Plus the orgy.

Wouldn't have pegged Seb to be the one cool with making the Black kid less intellectual and more of a thug in a movie

I didn't knock it against the movie itself, just expressing it was the only change that rubbed me a bit wrong.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Wouldn't have pegged Seb to be the one cool with making the Black kid less intellectual and more of a thug in a movie

How dare you assume I saw him as "black"?! I see no race!!!

I jest. Would it be good for him to be super intellectual? Sure. But for the 80s the whole thing seemed fine as it was here.

Any of you guys watch Red Letter Media?

showa58taro wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Wouldn't have pegged Seb to be the one cool with making the Black kid less intellectual and more of a thug in a movie

How dare you assume I saw him as "black"?! I see no race!!!

I jest. Would it be good for him to be super intellectual? Sure. But for the 80s the whole thing seemed fine as it was here.

I was jesting too, lol

Not necessarily super intellectual, but for 27 years you know, you're used to Mike being the gatekeeper of the history. The film technically works still, but would it be difficult to just add a minute of both Mike and Ben history nerding it up, like Mike fills in blanks that Ben can't find on record? Not really, and would help Mike feel more in the the circle of friends, rather than just another Bowers victim.

showa58taro wrote:Any of you guys watch Red Letter Media?

No idea what that is.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Any of you guys watch Red Letter Media?

No idea what that is.

https://youtu.be/0iID-OpwZ4E

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Wouldn't have pegged Seb to be the one cool with making the Black kid less intellectual and more of a thug in a movie

How dare you assume I saw him as "black"?! I see no race!!!

I jest. Would it be good for him to be super intellectual? Sure. But for the 80s the whole thing seemed fine as it was here.

I was jesting too, lol

Not necessarily super intellectual, but for 27 years you know, you're used to Mike being the gatekeeper of the history. The film technically works still, but would it be difficult to just add a minute of both Mike and Ben history nerding it up, like Mike fills in blanks that Ben can't find on record? Not really, and would help Mike feel more in the the circle of friends, rather than just another Bowers victim.

That, as a scene, would work.

showa58taro wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Any of you guys watch Red Letter Media?

No idea what that is.

https://youtu.be/0iID-OpwZ4E

Nice. Though I still find some of Harry Anderson's jokes funny. Some.

Do these guys like horror at all? Bitching that there's sound with sting scenes? Those have been around forever, even in House On Haunted Hill, the old one.

They must HATE Halloween.

Those guys really came off as pompous twats. Are they playing characters?

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Do these guys like horror at all? Bitching that there's sound with sting scenes? Those have been around forever, even in House On Haunted Hill, the old one.

They are not huge horror fans. Far more in tune with Star Wars and a few of the more mainstream. But they also review some sincere crap too. They're a mixed return for me. I agree often but they're not gods. In this case I agree with parts but disagree with other parts. They're very incisive though.

showa58taro wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Do these guys like horror at all? Bitching that there's sound with sting scenes? Those have been around forever, even in House On Haunted Hill, the old one.

They are not huge horror fans. Far more in tune with Star Wars and a few of the more mainstream. But they also review some sincere crap too. They're a mixed return for me. I agree often but they're not gods. In this case I agree with parts but disagree with other parts. They're very incisive though.

I do like that the big one called the little one out saying out of a 100 people, 99 would love the loud jump scares and he's the guy scared of old photographs. I lol'd at that.

Brad Jones/Cinema Snob tends to be one I find myself in tune with a lot. One of my favorite reviews of his was for Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter, dripped with so much sarcasm revealing the true masterpiece that it really is.

He really liked this new It too.

Again on the jump scares, I could see them being annoying when their worthless, but here I thought they were all worth it, and there was a great balance. On the third viewing, I even noticed the music score did not follow the Marvel trend of having music everywhere, or letting you know something is about to be creepy, but was quiet, until shit happened, then it propels. I dug that, it's not that common to do that these days anymore.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Do these guys like horror at all? Bitching that there's sound with sting scenes? Those have been around forever, even in House On Haunted Hill, the old one.

They are not huge horror fans. Far more in tune with Star Wars and a few of the more mainstream. But they also review some sincere crap too. They're a mixed return for me. I agree often but they're not gods. In this case I agree with parts but disagree with other parts. They're very incisive though.

Again on the jump scares, I could see them being annoying when their worthless, but here I thought they were all worth it, and there was a great balance. On the third viewing, I even noticed the music score did not follow the Marvel trend of having music everywhere, or letting you know something is about to be creepy, but was quiet, until shit happened, then it propels. I dug that, it's not that common to do that these days anymore.

I dig knowing that. Too many jump scares is lazy in general, but some can be really fucking lazy with the musical treatment.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Do these guys like horror at all? Bitching that there's sound with sting scenes? Those have been around forever, even in House On Haunted Hill, the old one.

How many times have we seen the cat jump scene or friend scare right before the real moment to enhance the roller coaster of emotion? I have no problem with it. They serve a purpose when well placed and executed. Is it a trope? Sure, but on some levels you need tropes in every genre for an enjoyable experience. The roller coaster needs a variety of twist and turns or you end up with a glorified ferris wheel.