Warner Bros. Orders Big-Screen Take On Stephen King's IT

[mr.brighteyes]

At Warner Bros. nothing is unadaptable.

Undeterred by the mixed critical reception of WATCHMEN (we'll know more about the commercial reception come Saturday), WB is reportedly moving forward on a feature-length version of Stephen King's beloved, 1,138-page IT. According to The Hollywood Reporter's Borys Kit, the studio has hired the up-and-coming Dave Kajganich to write the screenplay - which, to the delight of King purists everywhere, will be set in the present day!

Exclusively? Kit's article doesn't say, but focusing entirely on one-half of the story - whilst consigning the rest to, presumably, spoken exposition or quick flashbacks - would greatly weaken the emotional impact of the book. It's a tough call. Though I think the novel could've done with some judicious editing, I don't know what you cut exactly. When Tommy Lee Wallace directed the novel for network TV, he basically jettisoned all of the "icky" stuff (e.g. the fuckin'). That, despite a nightmare-inducing performance from Tim Curry as Pennywise the clown, did not work. As a two-hour-plus feature film (unless they land a big-fish director, it's doubtful WB would let this run over 130 minutes), I think you've no choice but to completely reconfigure the material.

I'm not familiar with Kajganich's work (he wrote THE INVASION and Joel Schumacher's upcoming CREEK), so I've no idea if he's up to the task. I wish him the best of luck, though. There may be a great 130-page screenplay tucked away in IT. What do you think?

Wow I never watched the original basically because the idea of it scared the bejesus out of me but still this seems like a bad idea

[marshal99]

Way too much material on the novel to be condensed into a 1 and a half hour movie.
The IT mini series was great. Tim Curry was pretty awesome as Pennywise the clown.
"They alllll float down here"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAJK5iVsios

[hoffmandu]

Gonna be aweful hard to give someone else a chance after Curry's performance...........which will always the way I remember his career. Huge fan of the book, read probably 3 times. And it still scares me. If Warner can harness even a fraction of that book they have a huge Blockbuster on their hands.

As for the director, Invasion was well made. At least it's not Ratner.

Besides, it's time for the newest generation to find out why clowns should be avoided at all costs.............especially the ones in sewer grates.........and the standpipe.............and the run down house by the railroad tracks.

[marshal99]

There's only one reliable director that have always done justice to King's film adaptations and that's Frank Darabont. The Mist was very good. Of course , there's also the green mile & shawshank redemption but he has always done his own scripting.

[mr.brighteyes]

Gonna be aweful hard to give someone else a chance after Curry's performance...........which will always the way I remember his career. Huge fan of the book, read probably 3 times. And it still scares me. If Warner can harness even a fraction of that book they have a huge Blockbuster on their hands.

As for the director, Invasion was well made. At least it's not Ratner.

Besides, it's time for the newest generation to find out why clowns should be avoided at all costs.............especially the ones in sewer grates.........and the standpipe.............and the run down house by the railroad tracks.


Was the one with Tim Curry the one with John boy

[Pól Rua]

Plus, the novel has a godawful ending.

[marshal99]

Plus, the novel has a godawful ending.

I think to be honest with a lot of Stephen King's big epic novels , the ending tends to be very anti-climatic. I believe it has to do with the time span taken to write the book , many of them take years , it's like king tends to rush the ending just to finish the novel once and for all and get published.

[Jared]

I thought the novel's ending was considerably better than the mini's, actually. But it would also be pretty damn hard to visualize on screen.

And then of course there's the part that HAS to be left out of any adaptation. I still wish it wasn't in the book. Just...ick.

[ForeverTaskmaster]

The ending of IT really looked like the budget was gone to film a worthy ending. Tim Curry as Pennywise the Clown was evil beyond evil. Definitely the most evil clown mofo in cinema ever. I will check out the remake but there is no chance in hell that Pennywise will be better in the remake.

[Jmacq1]

I thought the novel's ending was considerably better than the mini's, actually. But it would also be pretty damn hard to visualize on screen.

And then of course there's the part that HAS to be left out of any adaptation. I still wish it wasn't in the book. Just...ick.

Assuming we're thinking of the same part (and we probably are as its' by far the most controversial portion of the book), I don't know that it does. Obviously it almost certainly couldn't be -depicted- but it could be made clear what happened without seeing it.

Yes, it's uncomfortable, but it's also a fairly important part of the arc for at least one character.

[marshal99]

Not really needed , it doesn't really affect the flow of the story one bit.

[Mr.EZ]

I wonder how they're going to work in the all-children sex orgy at the end of the book.

No, I'm not a depraved psycho, it's actually in the book, and it's why I don't read King's work anymore.

And no, it did NOT have to be in the book, important character arcs or not.

[Mike Pothier]

While I don't get the jab about it being set in the "present day" (The novel was set in the 80s, but that wasn't an important plot point, like Watchmen), I think this could be done. in 2-3 hours, they could get a fair portion of the childhood onto the screen, plus they won't have to edit out some of the more scary images from the book. I mean, most of the adult portions in the book were just them gathering together and reminiscing about their childhood.

[TheComet]

I wonder how they're going to work in the all-children sex orgy at the end of the book.

No, I'm not a depraved psycho, it's actually in the book, and it's why I don't read King's work anymore.

And no, it did NOT have to be in the book, important character arcs or not.

AHHHRRGHH! You brought up the unmentionable! :eek:

That's what ruined "It" for me. That scene served absolutely no purpose and was downright creepy. And not creepy in a way that served the story or set the mood. Creepy in a "what the hell is wrong with the guy writing this?" kind of way.

[Mr.EZ]

AHHHRRGHH! You brought up the unmentionable! :eek:

That's what ruined "It" for me. That scene served absolutely no purpose and was downright creepy. And not creepy in a way that served the story or set the mood. Creepy in a "what the hell is wrong with the guy writing this?" kind of way.

Hey, don't blame me. I'm just the poor sucker that bought into King's "genius."

[Jared]

I remember asking about it on the Book board once. The defense of King was that he was probably on a lot of drugs when he wrote that part, and his other work doesn't have anything like it. It's a skippable part of the book, the movie could easily omit it. Surely there is some other way for the female on the team to contribute beyond being a...well...we know.

I thought the first half of the miniseries was much better than the second. Since faithfully recreating the parallel narratives of the book would be too time-consuming, I'd rather they just make a movie about the kids. If it works, a sequel could have them come back as adults.

[howyadoin]

I don't get this bit at all:
which, to the delight of King purists everywhere, will be set in the present day!
The hell is that even supposed to mean?

[mr.brighteyes]

I don't get this bit at all:

The hell is that even supposed to mean?

That there is sarcasm young fella.

[Paradox]

Mike Pothier asks:

The novel was set in the 80s, but that wasn't an important plot point, like Watchmen

Nope, but the kid scenes being involved with late '50s/early '60s mores and mentalities certainly is. Pretty much everything about them being kids would have to be rewritten.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

I wonder how they're going to work in the all-children sex orgy at the end of the book.

No, I'm not a depraved psycho, it's actually in the book, and it's why I don't read King's work anymore.

And no, it did NOT have to be in the book, important character arcs or not.


I don't remember that. Then again, I read the book back in '91.

Closest thing I remember was a circle-jerk.

[Paradox]

Which there wasn't one. You're just misremembering the scene in question.

[Morgado.]

At best the scene can be considered to represent a symbolic transition out of childhood for the Losers. The final loss of innocence, as it were. In reality, however... yeah, cocaine is a hell of a drug.

No idea how they'll make this work as a 2 hour movie without buggering it. At the worst they'll make the Losers into high schoolers, junk the return as adults (but keep the final outcomes for the characters), and give it a traditional dead teenager movie bent.

[Mike Pothier]

Nope, but the kid scenes being involved with late '50s/early '60s mores and mentalities certainly is. Pretty much everything about them being kids would have to be rewritten.

So? Just make the Losers a little older this time, fudge the cycle a little bit. It doesn't have to be a literal adaption, there's no way they can keep the entire history of Derry into the movie.

[marshal99]

As someone mentioned , they could just do the past history of the novel and not do the present .The past history portion of the book where they are all kids was pretty much complete by itself. There was an beginning and ending where they faced down pennywise. Sort of like a "stand by me" movie with monsters.

If the movie do well , they can then do the present portion of the book as a sequel where the kids grew into adulthood and they faced the terror again. There's no way you can cramp that much story from the book into a 2 hour movie especially with all the flashbacks between past and present.

[Paradox]

Mike Pothier wonders:

So?

The "so" is that '80s kids did not talk, act or think like late '50s kids. Completely different mindsets.

Just make the Losers a little older this time, fudge the cycle a little bit. It doesn't have to be a literal adaption, there's no way they can keep the entire history of Derry into the movie.

Didn't say it couldn't be done, but it would have to be completely rewritten. And if you're going to do that...

Frankly, King doesn't translate to the screen well for me at all. The biggest part of his writing I enjoy is his ability to paint a picture in my mind in such vivid detail (for instance, I could likely run blindfolded through his Derry, if it existed). You lose that when you can actually SEE it. The second biggest part of his writing I like is his depth in background and character. Hard to do in a movie, unless it's hours and hours long. His plots are pretty standard and mediocre, and that's all that makes it to the screen. What makes King's writing work is exactly what makes his movies not work.

[Morgado.]

Seeing as King has always been very open about being much happier with the tv mini series adaptions of his work, I'm surprised he hasn't worked something out with HBO or Showtime at this point.

[marshal99]

Darabont did a very good of "The Mist" but then he's one of a very few directors that can translate King's works into the screen well. Craig R Baxley is another one that is a regular director for King's TV adaptations.

[TheComet]

At best the scene can be considered to represent a symbolic transition out of childhood for the Losers. The final loss of innocence, as it were. In reality, however... yeah, cocaine is a hell of a drug.


I think that was what he was going for. A lot of books have wtf? moments like that, and I always wonder why the author (or at least his editor) can't think of what the implications of what they just wrote are. What he might have intended as a transition out of childhood becomes, "Hey guys, let's gangbang the girl with an abusive father and self esteem issues!" That's not so much leaving your childhood behind as it is ripping it apart and wiping your rear with it.

Moving away from that unpleasantness, "It" is actually a great story (aside from what's mentioned above which won't be in the movie). I think it can be compressed in to a 2 hour movie without loosing too much of the main plot. Most of "It's" bulk comes from minor characters and events. I also don't think moving the story up to the modern day will hurt it. The time "It" is set in doesn't have much to do with the actual plot. The childhood scenes can take place in the 70s or 80s without loosing anything.

[Mike Pothier]

The "so" is that '80s kids did not talk, act or think like late '50s kids. Completely different mindsets.

Huh? The adults were placed in the eighties, not the kids. If the OP meant they would have the kids today, then I'd agree with you. I meant keeping the kids in the 50s/60s, and just moving the adults to today.

Not that its really necessary. Is it so hard to replicate the late 80s? Fuck no.

[Paradox]

Mike Pothier will have his way:

Huh? The adults were placed in the eighties, not the kids.

I assumed we meant if the film took place contemporarily, that the kids would be in the '80s.

If the OP meant they would have the kids today, then I'd agree with you. I meant keeping the kids in the 50s/60s, and just moving the adults to today.

Really? You want to have the story be about a bunch of 50/60 year old farts? Oh, that'd go over REAL big in Hollywood. :tongue:

Not that its really necessary. Is it so hard to replicate the late 80s? Fuck no.

Nope. I said that. But it would have to be totally rewritten. Much of the story is about the outcasts naturally falling together in the Barrens. Frankly, I see kids from the '80s doing a lot more sitting around watching TV and playing video games than hanging out in a wooded wash of sewer drainage. Maybe that's just me. :smile:

It could be done. But a lot would have to be changed.

[hoffmandu]

It's a foolish idea to mess with the setting IMHO. 50's and 80's is the only way to go. Lets get on to the casting of Pennywise, people!

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Which there wasn't one. You're just misremembering the scene in question.

Probably so. For some reason, I remember the sadistic bullies having done some sort of circle jerk. Maybe it led to more, or maybe I simply have my recollection of that scene mixed up (I was around 15 or 16 when I read it. It was 1990, not '91).

I do remember the book being about 1,084 pages, and I read it within a week while on vacation in Europe, so I'm not surprised if some of my memory of the book is botched up.

Like almost every single one of King's novels that I had read back then, I remember it having a disappointing ending.....I think I remember a group recital of an old Native American limerick, while holding your tongue out? I found that to be a bit of a dud.

[Paradox]

Christopher Cross Is God calls me out:

Probably so. For some reason, I remember the sadistic bullies having done some sort of circle jerk.

Whoops. Nope, you're right and I was wrong. I was thinking only of the main characters, but you're right on that one. Well, if two guys make a circle, anyway.

[hoffmandu]

LOL! Yeah, that did happen too. Kind of hoping they cut both scenes.

[Paradox]

The circle jerk thing was pretty much only to relate Patrick being somewhat gay and Henry's latentism/homophobia. It's not that big a thing in the overall scheme, just a character bit. I'd expect it to be left out.