Beware: Here's the terrifying new trailer for Stephen King's It

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Beware: Here's the terrifying new trailer for Stephen King's It

[Gerard]

It'll be interesting to see how they're going to take another 1,000 page King epic novel and compress it into less than two hours.  They initially planned to do that with The Stand back in the 90's, and realized it couldn't be done, so it became a multi-episode TV mini-series.  I know this is heresy, but the cinematic version of The Shining was, to me, a disaster (even with "Heeeeere's Johnny!").  The made-for-TV mini-series re-imaging was far better; not perfect, but better.  King's brilliant works are difficult to adapt to celluloid.  His "shorter" endeavors, like Misery, or The Mist can easier translate. 

Gerard

[Brian]

From the trailer and IMDB listings, it doesn't look like the entire story is being told.  Not going to spoil it for those who don't know the book (or TV movie), but if you do, you'll know what I mean...

[KMR]

Stephen King's works are notoriously difficult to translate to the screen.  His particular skill is getting the reader inside the character's minds.  Film and television are visual media, and adapters tend to concentrate on the external aspects of King's work, instead of the internal, because that is so much easier to do on film.

[Gerard]

Brian, I noticed right away from the trailer what is seemingly missing in this adaptation.  And if it, indeed, not there, then a huge chunk of the novel has been left out.

Gerard

[Midnite]

It'll be interesting to see how they're going to take another 1,000 page King epic novel and compress it into less than two hours.

According to the article under the trailer, this is only the first of two movies that will tell the story.

[Gerard]

Now, that's a gamble.  If the first movie bombs, no need to make an "It-2," leaving fans who did enjoy it out in the cold.  I'm surprised they didn't go with a "sure thing" and do the Netflix or Amazon or whatever route and adapt the whole thing.  Maybe even AMC might've gone along with it, using it as a filler between The Walking Dead and Fear the Walking Dead.  Eight-or-so episodes and - voila! - done.  I don't know what the general statistics are, but most people I know no longer go to the "cinema."  Other than the cheapo-Tuesday-night for five bucks to watch something they really, really, really want to see (which is still rare), they stay home and do all that downloading or streaming stuff (which I'm not familiar with).  It's much less expensive than what they now charge at theaters.  Our other option is a local theater that runs "major" films after they've dried out in mainstream release for two bucks.  That place is packed.  Sometimes, they do a five-buck special where you get not only a movie (sometimes two), but a huge pizza, super-sized drink and breadsticks.  You can't park during that one for blocks around.  I saw the '12 DS movie (for a second time) along with The Hunger Games and got my pizza, sticks and supersized diet Pepsi (well, you've gotta have something "healthy") and took the left-overs home for two more suppers.  Strange how an independent theater like that can charge those hugely cheap prices and rake the money in, but "major chains" can't make a profit unless they charge twelve bucks for one movie, seven dollars for a popcorn, three for a drink and five for a candy bar.  Oh, wait, you now get reclining, rocking seats.  I've got one of those at home.

Gerard

[Mysterious Benefactor]

This is getting way OT, but when a film first comes out, the vast majority of the money the theaters take in goes right to the studios, not to the theaters. If they didn't charge those big ticket prices, they wouldn't be able to stay in business because the concessions alone don't cover the theaters' operating costs.

On the other hand, by the time a film plays in the discount theaters, those theaters are getting a much larger share of what a film takes in, so that's why they can charge less.