![]() ![]() I'm all for different opinions, but the fact that anyone could enjoy that trash from any viewpoint is mind boggling. Not to mention making Mike's character completely pointless in doing so.Īnd are those fucking fiber optic cables or some kind of switch LED they are laughably portraying as the dead lights? Though that claim is a complete lie and you only need to see the obvious role switches they pulled. There are those who claim it is more accurate to the book (regardless of whether it is or isn't it's a horrible movie approaching it from any viewpoint). To be serious though: the newer films are complete trash. Fuck that movie) of things that are plot important, it’s just a meh movie in my book.Ģ017 IT? I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I’d hate it a lot more if it were a bad adaptation but bc they don’t change too much (like they did with the most recent Pet Sematary movie. But from talking with my sister she says both do fine. I never quite finished the book, I think I started reading it in 2018 or 2019 during my junior year of high school but I was taking AP classes and didn’t have time to be reading a doorstopper. I by no means think it was a bad adaptation either, as much as I rag on it. The 2017 adaptation just doesn’t feel as timeless. I’m a pedantic asshole about things like that and I know most people don’t care but goddamn it there should not be a TV from my childhood in a movie that takes place in the 80s. Additionally a lot of the set dressing was just… so anachronistic. I understand why they did it but it also kinda feels like it was trying to cash in the massive 80s nostalgia boom that came about bc of Stranger Things. I also dislike the time change to the 80s for part 1. ![]() That kinda makes me sad bc a lot of the mini series have stuff cut from them bc there was content in the books not fit for tv they could include in the books because of the freedom of film but never do. A lot of the modern re-adaptations have too much polish. Part of the charm of Stephen King adaptations is how wonky they are sometimes. There's nothing wrong with you liking it, since that part is subjective.ġ990 for sure. The miniseries doesn't hold up under any objective scrutiny. That's why I think chapter 1 is better as a piece of horror and entertainment. It's like they used the actual book's pages as a script verbatim, not realizing a book doesn't translate directly to screen. And people might complain about the pacing of part 2, (which is fair, that's my main complaint of that movie) but the pacing of the miniseries is atrocious. Aside from Tim Curry, pretty much everyone's acting is objectively sub par at best, but mostly just bad. Not just financially, but as far as broadcast regulations (which, at the time, were way stricter than movie ratings boards).īesides, it not being scary isn't really my main issue. Watching it as an adult with no prior trauma related to it, it's a mostly uneventful slog that's hindered by its nature as a made-for-TV show, which hindered what it was even able to show in the first place. Of course it's still going to affect you if that's the case. I mean, you flat out admit it traumatized you because you were a kid. Don’t go disrespecting other people’s opinions because you don’t agree with them. Btw Bill Skarsgard was a lot more accurately portrayed as Pennywise exactly like how Pennywise is portrayed in the book, compared to the 1990s version.Įdit: Everyone isn’t going to have the same opinions as you. Overall I’m just relieved that the remake wasn’t a fucked up. I also think people might like each versions for different reasons. They played pennywise so damn well, and each bought something different to the table while playing Pennywise. I think both Bill Skarsgard and Tim Curry did an fantastic job at their roles. I think that was the way the director wanted Pennywise to be instead of how he was in the the 1990 version. Meanwhile the Pennywise in the 2017 version seems more demonic and very aggressive in a way instead of being like a killer clown. And I know everyone who were kids back in the 90s had seen or heard about IT when it came out and it had a whole lot of us scared shitless lol. ![]() Especially since a lot of shit like that actually happened back then. And I think for some people back in the 90s when the movie came out that’s what really terrified them the most as kids. One thing that really stood out to me about the 90s version is that Pennywise seems more like a serial killer clown that would actually terrorize kids and kill them. But I guess that’s kind of the whole point. Now don’t get me wrong the 90s version is great and all but I rewatched it after seeing the 2017 version and it’s low key cringe and comical in a way. I prefer the 2017 version, it was a lot more terrifying and emotional to me personally. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |