BoogieWoogie
Banned
It's great because it's out of focus, making it creepier because it's clear she's practically about to jump over her desk to get at Ben.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Stephen King's IT |OT| He thrusts his fists and then he posts (Unmarked spoilers)
- Thread starter Kyleripman
- Start date
It's great because it's out of focus, making it creepier because it's clear she's practically about to jump over her desk to get at Ben.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I'm almost 100% those are leftovers from a different version of the scene.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
This is the kind ot horror I like and I would make and I often wonder why no one does it more frequently. I imagine it's a faux pas or unwritten rule or what not? That would be dumb.
One of the first movies I've seen that made me want to make a film that used it more often was Legend where you see a cherub statue move in the background. It's never focused on and never explained and I only noticed years later on the DVD release which made it more terrifying (despite that not being the intent) because it meant it was there all this time when I was a kid haha.
Yea that's how it felt to me. I was like she looks sort of creepy, but then there was zero payoff.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
She also teleports around the library depending on the shot. It really seems like there was an earlier version of that scene they decided against for whatever reason, and they just repurposed some of the shots for the version in the film.
Or she was just a bad extra and they didnt catch it on the set
MagnaderAlpha
Member
While I'm not bored with 80s nostalgia, I do agree, by the end of the movie, it almost felt like an R-rated Goosebumps. Especially the more comical moments, like his "hyuk hyuk" dancing in the circus car, and his transformation from Georgie back into the clown.
gameoverbro
Member
Oh man that scene was well done. I told my wife to look at the back of the kid. She didn't notice it at first.
Yautja_Warrior
Member
With the amazing box office results, I wonder if part 2 will get a bigger budget to allow for even more creepy effects and hopefully a decent looking Spider at the end.
Captain Skeleton
Member
I saw IT for a second time last night and it's definitely one of my favorite films of the year.
plagiarize
Banned
I hope they splash out a bit on the cast if anything. The kids were incredible. Getting some names to play the adult versions appeals to me.
More_Badass
Member
Just the fact that they'll have to get an ensemble cast of adult actors likely has to mean a bigger budget
Personally I'd much rather prefer unknowns
Needful Things and Tommyknockers are both great
Cosmonaut X
Member
Ha! Did exactly the same with my wife :-D
I hope they get a modest budget increase to allow for a good adult cast and a small boost in SFX budget, but I think they'll take more chances and be more inventive if they're not given too inflated a budget.
I did like the idea of Charlie Cox as Bill, but broadly I'd agree - the chemistry and ability of the adult cast is key, and the idea that it needs "names" is one to avoid. If a name actor is a good fit physically, ability-wise or in chemistry with the other actors, fine - if not, don't force someone "bankable" in.
More_Badass
Member
A lot of actors can convincingly become their characters or feel different, rather just being "X playing whoever" onscreen, but I've found that having unknowns adds another layer between the reality of filmmaking and the vision of the presented story. I've noticed it when watching foregin movies and shows; there's something about not being familiar with the actors onscreen that makes a story feel more real.
Horse Detective
Why the long case?
My girlfriend missed the shot of the librarian completely while it was the only thing I could focus on.
I don't know what it is about the shot but it made me so uncomfortable.
I don't know what it is about the shot but it made me so uncomfortable.
Paracelsus
Member
I want a remake of the Langoliers.
I completely missed the weird librarian. Well, guess I'll just have to go see the movie again then.
How can you improve on perfection?
Langoliers fucked me up as a kid. Loved it
Horse Detective
Why the long case?
Its easy to miss because she is initially preoccupied, then walks up to a table and just stares, grinning for like 10 seconds, while everyone around her goes about their business.
Lord of Castamere
Member
Was the second half of 11-22-63 good? I read like half of it and lost interest for some reason. I think he had just met Oswald when I stopped.
I still do think the bookies coming after their money was a really clever subvert. That, and the opening, left the biggest impression.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I assume there has been no casting for the adults yet? Cuz damn if Bill didn't look like the guy from Silicon Valley who was also Gabe on the office.
DeviantBoi
Member
Bring back Seth Green from the mini series as Richie.
Horse Detective
Why the long case?
Does anyone know how I might be able to get a clear screencap of the weird "cat" shirt one of the bullys is wearing while chasing Ben?
I remember the graphic being really cool looking and I want to draw it!
I remember the graphic being really cool looking and I want to draw it!
Kyleripman
Member
Did you also notice the Tracker Brothers Trucking shirt that one of the kids (forget which) was wearing? Nice book reference.
I'm glad you mentioned this because apart from what I said earlier, what makes that scene great was her body language. Every time the shot cuts from the contents of the book Ben is reading to him sitting at his table, you can see her getting ever so closer to him but not in an obvious way that calls attention to itself. at one point her posture does suggest she's about to pounce over a table.
When every other scare in the film practically telegraphs their payoffs, sometimes no payoff is the ultimate payoff. It lingers after the scene ends and keeps you on edge.
Im pretty sure there were two librarians. The tracking shot of the balloon drifting out of the room shows the creepy librarian still standing near the back left aisle of bookshelves while a second one is sitting at the reception desk on the right side.
Whether or not this scene was cobbled together from a different one entirely I'm willing to consider yes. In any case it makes me wish the rest of the film were more like it.
Brainfreeze
Member
I forgot all about the librarian scene, that was honestly the most unsettling part of the film. It was made even worse because I even felt a little crazy, since no one else seemed to acknowledge it, in or out of the film. That was a really interesting shot.
Agreed. Having read the book, I was expecting a lot more from The Bowers gang - what was presented and the changes made were quite disappointing tbh.
CloudStrife_ca
Member
That shirt stood out to me too, I was thinking it'd be great to put up on RedBubble, The character Patrick Hockstetter in the movie was wearing it if that helps.
Robot Pants
Member
Cause kids are missing
Because someone is killing kids.
More_Badass
Member
In the book, people think there's a killer roaming the town due to kids being killed (not merely missing like in the movie), so a curfew is enacted.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
Wow I completely missed that but just reading it gave me chills.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
I agree with you guys that the movie isn't overly scary but it settles into your bones in a way that has continued to creep me out since. Ill think back to several scene's and it starts to unnerve me which is exactly how I remember feeling as a kid with the original. I can't remember the last time a "scary" movie had that kind of effect.
Plus my friends left several balloons floating in my parking garage last night and that made me feel proper messed up.
Plus my friends left several balloons floating in my parking garage last night and that made me feel proper messed up.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
It's Tom of Tom and Jerry, but I can't find a shirt like that online.
The Witch was the last film to do that to me.
And I've been feeling the same. I didn't find it particularly scary, but I'll be damned if that Georgie in the basement scene hasn't stuck with me big time.
The other cool "background" thing that I mentioned before is the creepy TV show that everyone is watching. When the audio is in the background whenever anyone walks by you can hear the host saying creepy things in a perfectly professional "announcer" voice like "you should go play in the sewers-they're a great place to have fun!"
More_Badass
Member
If you can say this movie had such an effect, but then say it wasn't overly/particularly scary, then what exactly does "scary" even mean for a horror movie? I'd argue that if a movie can make you feel like that, it's more scary and effective than a movie that can't. Like that should be the highest goal of a scary movie, that haunting feeling that sticks with you well after you see it
If that isn't scary, then what is? I find it an odd juxtaposition between saying a movie wasn't scary but it's still haunting your thoughts and unsettling you days later
I actually made a thread about that earlier this year
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1362779
"It wasn't scary" is a common criticism you see when anything horror is discussed (cough The Witch cough), and I think over the years, I've come to see that kind of assessment as odd. It seems to imply that if a movie or work isn't actively scaring you, making you feel fear, than it's a failure in the horror department. Maybe it's not even horror.
Although when I hear criticism like that, I tend to envision their definition of "scary" as said work making them react like this during it
But I feel like the idea that something horror has to scare you to be considered as such to be pretty narrow. Especially when you consider that a veteran of the genre and subgenres has probably seen dozens or hundreds of takes on various genres, and thus the mechanisms of those genres have probably long been acclimated to.
But horror can unsettle and disturb, make you feel uncomfortable and tense. Personally I don't think those are the kinds of reactions that are usually associated with the "it wasn't scary, it wasn't actually horror" criticism. To be fair, it's way easier to startle with a quick scare than it is to create an atmosphere of dread, so I can see why the former has been so closely linked with what a work of horror is supposed to be do
The Georgie-Puppet scene in the basement and the library scene are really the only ones that have stuck with me at a creepy level (the garage slide projector scene is too "actiony" to really have the same effect on me).
One other characterization thing that annoys me about the film is the focus on Stanley being Jewish to the complete detriment of his bird watching - which I don't think was even mentioned at all was it? Now, maybe that's because such a hobby isn't something kids would be doing in the 80s, but the cynical side of me makes me think they went with the cultural stereotype angle which would be easier, much the same way the "brains" subplot was migrated from Mike to one of the white kids so he'd have a more stereotypical "working poor" backstory without any nuance.
Pilgrimzero
Member
Just saw IT.
I felt they needed to show the kids being kids together. It's like Mike joins then off they go to the end. They weren't t a group together for long enough IMO.
Really I'd say most of the character slack any characterization.
But then again I'm comparing it to the Curry film where it showed a lot more, so it seems to me.
Bev was the best character IMO and I wasn't to
Again I'm comparing it to the old film.
I really really liked it though but I think an extra 15 min to show down time would have added some glue.
I felt they needed to show the kids being kids together. It's like Mike joins then off they go to the end. They weren't t a group together for long enough IMO.
Really I'd say most of the character slack any characterization.
But then again I'm comparing it to the Curry film where it showed a lot more, so it seems to me.
Bev was the best character IMO and I wasn't to
pleased she became a damsel in distress. Also kind of weird with her and Bill.
Again I'm comparing it to the old film.
I really really liked it though but I think an extra 15 min to show down time would have added some glue.
UnemployedVillain
Member
I couldn't get over how goofy Pennywise was. The stuff surrounding him playing up to the kids fears was a little spooky, but anytime they showed him with his huge buck teeth, and goofy sounding voice...I feel like they were going for creepy and unnatural, but it just came off as dumb.
To elaborate, I did not find the film frightening as I watched it. It did not build or sustain tension, I did not find the jump scares to be effectively constructed, and I did not find the horror elements particularly horrifying. Some of the ideas were scary in concept, but most of them were not executed in a way that actually unsettled me or put me on edge in any way.
It did, however, have some creepy imagery that has stuck with me. The painted lady with her face of teeth covering Stan's. The puppet Georgie degenerating. The bodies of the prior victims floating in the sewers. Pennywise's glowing eyes during Mike's encounter. I saw those things in the film and thought they were neat imagery in scenes that lacked tension and no way frightened me. But the images stuck with me, and I shudder a bit thinking back on them. That's a measure of success, but a highly qualified one.
The Witch is a film that built up an atmosphere of impending dread and helplessness from the onset, and I found both the visuals and the ideas horrifying in the moment, and well after viewing.
I'm planning to see IT again since it was a fun time, and enjoy some of the creepy images. I just don't think it was an effective horror film in any way other than the composition of a few visuals.
MagnaderAlpha
Member
To me, I think there was a bit too much winking to the fans of the book that served no purpose in the movie itself. I liked the Standpipe cameo (hehehe, it was a cameo), but in the movie, it served NO IMPORTANCE, neither did the Paul Bunyan statue. When Eddie is walking to Neibolt Street, you can hear gospel singing in the small church he passes by, which you'd know in the book that Eddie liked how their music didn't sound uptight like other churches music, but leaned more towards rock 'n roll during a time when everybody was stuck-up regarding how sinful rock 'n roll was, even though the youth was big into it (to the point that the only thing the Losers and Henry Bowers had in common was that they all had much love rock 'n roll). To those not familiar with the novel (and maybe only seen the mini-series or if this movie is the first dealings with "It"), those sorta references have no weight to them. Stuff like the Bradley gang massacre, the name/event dropping of the Black Spot, the disappearing settlers and the Kitchener Ironworks explosion ARE important, historically to what's going on in the movie. Some of the other stuff, though, aren't.
I said it before, Bowers has other friends that could've been used instead of Patrick. The only reason they USED Patrick was because of who he was and his infamy among readers of the novel, but there is a REASON why he had an impression on those readers. If you wanted just another "bully" to act as an easy kill, you could've picked Moose Sadler or Peter Gordon, who were basically lower tier under Henry, Belch and Victor.
I hate to bring it up, but even in the mini-series there was a growing tension between Bowers and the Losers. You see Henry's interactions with the Losers as a whole, but also his interactions with them one-by-one on a personal level. Of course the novel is KING (hehehe) in showing his gradual slip into madness, not only by the way his father treats him and Pennywise's influence, but the way he'd lose his power over the Losers during the apocalyptic rock fight and use that as a reason to finally seek them out and kill them. Even as barebones and "lite" as the mini-series was, this still was a part of it. In THIS movie, however, we aren't given that "relationship" between Henry and the Losers, he is just a bully that hates them... because...
Stiler
Member
He's talked about it before. Basically it was his way of them making a link to that moment in time that they'd remember. When losing your virginity for the first time it's something you don't forget so doing that was a means of them bridging the gap and creating a way for them, as adults, to keep that link to that point in time and remember it.
King saw that scene as the kids transitioning from childhood to adulthood, and as a way for Bev to bring them all together in the aftermath of their fight with It and as a way out of despair. He was also coked out of his mind. I think that last part was the decisive one.