sh-it

so they’re remaking the film adaptation of stephen king’s it.

what for? does anyone think they’re going to outdo this?

wpid-pennywise-laughing

dream on. tim curry was masterful in his portrayal of pennywise. look how he perfectly captures the clown vibe, that simultaneously goofy yet nightmarish quality that inspires fear in so many people. do you think anyone can pull that off? because they can’t. it takes a deep understanding of clowns, the circus, facial expressions, body language, children’s minds and imaginations, etc to create curry’s performance. a wig and some makeup do not a scary clown make.

i’m sure some hipster dickhead loser somewhere who LOVES remakes will read this and think, “this jerk isn’t even giving the remake a chance.” and of course, they’re correct. i’m not going to waste my time watching that trash. remakes are a lazy, cheap way to profit off of nostalgia. think of all the adults out there who grew up in the 80’s and loved the first version of this flick. most of them will see a trailer or ad for the remake and think “i liked that movie, i’d like to see it updated with some sweet CGI and scarlett johansson in the lead role.” bam, there’s its built-in audience. that’s all it takes. the remake doesn’t need to be good to be successful. it will be successful simply by bearing the same name and recognizable characters as the original. the rest is just details, details which will mauled and mutilated until the film becomes a humorous, insipid love triangle action movie.

mark my words: it will be garbage.

so no, i’m not going to be checking it out. i’m going to be avoiding it at all costs. i hope it dies on the cutting room floor.

fuck remakes and fuck the lazy cunts who keep pounding them out. get an original idea for once, you hacks. take a chance, do something real, say something that matters, do something that actually means something to you. or just go die. these remakes are utter shit and so are the people behind them.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “sh-it

  1. You know it isn’t a remake, right? It’s an entirely separate adaptation. Having actually read the book, I think that everything but Tim Curry’s Pennywise was shit in the miniseries, and even then it was a super inaccurate adaptation from the book’s Pennywise. You need to acknowledge the fact that Stephen King’s books came out before their adaptations, and that many of the most popular adaptations completely miss the point of his novels, usually to make them more scary.

    1. you can say it’s an entirely separate adaptation but i think that’s naive. if there had never been the 1990 miniseries, the 2017 version wouldn’t exist since it wouldn’t have the built-in market of all the kids who watched it back then and are grown up now and nostalgic about their fave childhood horror films. without that financial assurance, no one would think or bother to make a film of IT in 2017, so many years after the book was written.

      also, i don’t think it matters whether it’s intended as a separate adaptation or a remake of the miniseries because details may vary between the source material but the overarching themes remain: killer clown terrorizes small town, loser kids fight back, yada yada. you can dress that up in a million different ways and it will still be the same basic premise. because of this and my previous point, i still consider IT 2017 a remake of the 1990 miniseries.

      i also don’t care about films being true to the source material, for a few reasons. first, they are totally different mediums and what works in a book may not work in a film, and vice versa of course. second, whenever someone takes someone else’s art and creates an adaptation of it, it is inherently only that second person’s interpretation of the original work — when you read IT and make a ‘true to the book’ version of it, it will still be quite different from MY ‘true to the book’ version of it. i think that expecting any sort of uniformity between any original work and its adaptations is an exercise in futility. i think it’s best to acknowledge this and accept adaptations as their own standalone works and judge them on their own merits. for example, king’s book ‘the shining’ is quite different from kubrick’s film adaptation. and thank god for that, because kubrick wound up making one of the greatest films of all time while king’s own made-for-tv adaptation was a steaming pile of shit. sometimes it’s better to let others take your work and run with it, rather than try to rigidly stick to the source material.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s