Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
Re: Movie: It (Stephen King, 2017)
Posted: Thu November 02, 2017 4:37 pm
by LoathedVermin72
A little late.
Re: Movie: It (Stephen King, 2017)
Posted: Thu November 02, 2017 4:46 pm
by epilogue
tragabigzanda wrote:
durdencommatyler wrote:
LoathedVermin72 wrote:The tone is very similar, and, yes, It takes place in the '80s. Which makes perfect sense. Contemporary audiences aren't going to feel nostalgic for the '50s in the way the original audience for the book would have, and this way the second movie can be set in present time.
Interesting that you like nostalgia in 'It' but not in Stranger Things.
For me it isn't the nostalgia that's important. The larger themes of America in the 50's is far more potent. What King was doing in the book had little to do with nostalgia and everything to do with the myth and menace of 50's Americana. Losing that kinda sucks. At least in my mind. Again, I haven't seen the film.
But the same holds true for the adult stuff in part two. There are so many great parallels to the whole "child abduction" boom/obsession/fear in the 80s that played so well in contrast with the 50's stuff in the book. Maybe they're using that as the starting point in the movie (the 80's stuff) but I have a hard time imagining what modern day equivalent will be. Anyway... my opinion on the matter is fairly meaningless until I actually watch the damn thing.
Another vote for "placing the movie in the 80s works." Really well, in fact.
Cool. So without spoiling anything major about the movie (I saw the old mini-series and read the book, so you can be loose with the term "Spoiler" as I know the story), as a fan of the book and the film, can you speak more to why the 80's move worked for you? Did you miss any of the subtext and commentary from the book by changing the decade? How do they replace all that tension, texture and thematic exploration of the 1950's and perceived Americana in the movie? What themes/ideas/menaces take the place of all that stuff?
Re: Movie: It (Stephen King, 2017)
Posted: Thu November 02, 2017 4:48 pm
by LoathedVermin72
I think it could be argued that the '80s represent a certain kind of hollow Americana to modern generations that the '50s did to older generations.
Re: Movie: It (Stephen King, 2017)
Posted: Thu November 02, 2017 4:53 pm
by epilogue
LoathedVermin72 wrote:I think it could be argued that the '80s represent a certain kind of hollow Americana to modern generations that the '50s did to older generations.
But in an opposite way, right? I mean, as it pertains to themes of 'It.' So much of the point of 'It' is that there couldn't possibly be this inexplicable horror lurking beneath all of it. In the 80's weren't there boogey-men everywhere? At least, that's my memory of the 80's. Especially with the rise of child abduction attention: America's Most Wanted, etc.
Re: Movie: It (Stephen King, 2017)
Posted: Thu November 02, 2017 5:00 pm
by tragabigzanda
Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
Re: Movie: It (Stephen King, 2017)
Posted: Thu November 02, 2017 5:36 pm
by epilogue
Cool. So, it sounds to me like the stuff I connected with the most in the kids' half of the book is different in the movie and I just need to accept that and enjoy the movie for what it's trying to do. Thanks.
Re: Movie: It (Stephen King, 2017)
Posted: Tue November 07, 2017 3:30 pm
by tragabigzanda
Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
That was pretty much a foregone conclusion. The kid actor said she wanted her, and the director has worked with her before on Mama. It seems super obvious. It's awful, but obvious.
Re: Movie: It (Stephen King, 2017)
Posted: Tue November 07, 2017 6:52 pm
by Farmer John
Team Amy Adams
Re: Movie: It (Stephen King, 2017)
Posted: Tue November 07, 2017 7:24 pm
by Farmer John
I've seen IT three times now. I love it so much.
Re: Movie: It (Stephen King, 2017)
Posted: Thu November 09, 2017 4:19 am
by Mecca
does chastain even have freckles?
Re: Movie: It (Stephen King, 2017)
Posted: Sun July 22, 2018 3:33 pm
by daft twat
Tim Curry was better.
Re: Movie: It (Stephen King, 2017)
Posted: Mon July 23, 2018 12:21 pm
by Biff Pocoroba
I enjoyed the new It.
Two things though: 1. the kids' part was better and the scarier half of the book and original mini. 2. I hope they change the big finale fight to something other than a giant spider.
Re: Movie: It (Stephen King, 2017)
Posted: Mon July 23, 2018 12:58 pm
by VinylGuy
fuck no, i want the spider and the whole cosmic trip.