Yet more thoughts about the It remake.

Part 3 in my series of preview articles on the IT remake.

Strangely enough I find it very easy for me to use the upcoming IT movie as a kind of coat rack to hang all the little articles roaming on my mental desktop on. I don't know anything about the upcoming movie, apart from what I’m telling you. So here it goes.

This article is going to delve a bit deeper into what we know so far. So be warned. Even though I haven't seen the movie, a lot of my musings can be considered spoilers.

Also if you haven't seen the 1990 mini-series or read the book you'd better stay away as well.

Investigating the trailers some more.

There have been three trailers so far: a teaser trailer for the trailer, the first trailer showing bits and pieces, and the second trailer containing a large chunk of a scene between Bill, Mike, Stan and Eddy.

In my last article I glanced over the trailers in a broad manner because I wanted to focus on investigating promotional pictures of the movie. The reason for this I explained as follows: because it’s fun. It’s fun to find out little details beforehand as long as they don’t spoil too much.

However, the same can be done with trailers. There is only one real distinction between trailers and promotional pictures. Pictures stand alone. Trailers are pieced together creating a clutter of scenes you need to unravel. So you can have one shot from the last half of the movie and one shot from the start and together they form the taster of the movie that is the trailer. So, for instance, in the first trailer there is a scene of little Georgie screaming from the top of his lungs that: “You’ll float too!”. Then there is a shot of Pennywise rising from the water. This, followed by a shot of Pennywise fast forwarding towards the camera.

To me a direct callback to one of the ghouls in the House on Haunted Hill-remake (1998).

But maybe there was another source of inspiration.

You can make the educated guess that the first two shots are together in the final cut of the movie because of the rain booths on the right of the screen. The third shot, however, isn’t. The third shot takes place in a cellar (with a refrigerator and everything) while the two preceding shots take place in a sewer.

So that’s the way to look at trailers. It uses all the available footage of the film and pieces together a cut that glimpses at the end result regardless of chronology to interest and, perhaps, excite the audience – as it should.

So what are these glimpses we’ve gotten? What can I deduct from the footage I was allowed to see?

 One of the fun parts of a popular upcoming movie are the visual outings by the people online. So there is some lovely fan-art floating around (ha! floating). But also some people who made youtube-videos examining the trailers in detail (like what I’m doing right now). Or people explaining/spoiling the history and origins of Pennywise.

In short I’m not the only one. But it’s fun share insights and disagree with some.

The teaser trailer of the trailer.

That’s the easiest one to tackle. Basically it tells you three things: sewers have something to do with it. The blood red letters spelling ‘IT’ assure you that it isn’t going to be a comedy. And most importantly; it’s the only trailer that, until now, has given any audio of Pennywise’s voice – namely it’s laugh.

The first and second trailer.

There are three ‘big’ (relative of course) scenes in the first  two trailers. First, there’s little Georgie’s playtime in the rain and the reveal of Pennywise. The later callback of the boy in the “You’ll float too”-scene. And finally, in the second trailer, a full thirty-seconds of Bill, Mike, Stan and Eddy investigating the sewers and bantering amongst each other.

So those first two scenes were to set up to showcase both a bond between brothers as a motivator as to, simultaneously, put the minds of people who love the original  TV-outing at ease (the rain scene is almost the same as the mini-series).

The third scene, then, was to give a glimpse of some of the characters. Especially Eddy being the hypochondriac mother’s boy and Richie the clown of the group.

I like the banter between the boys. Eddy is a bit more talkative which is good and plays well off the (terrible eyesight-again) Richie. Plus some adult sex-induced teenage boy humor which is always good (it's been a while since the Goonies glued Michelangelo’s David's ‘mini-me’ the wrong side up).

Stan is - as expected from his character- a bit standoffish. However, keeping in mind the amount of time he's in each trailer and the fact that (according to Instagram) the boy was on set a lot (bloodied face and all). I do start to think his role is a bit more prominent in this adaptation.  Remember; it’s Stan on the floor in this promo picture. And it’s Stan that gives the opening speech at his bar mitzvah(I almost didn’t recognize him). Everything tells me that Stan, in this version, is going to feature a lot more prominently than in the mini-series.

Also that shot of him in the third trailer: are those deadlights?

Let's not forget that, in the original mini-series (1991), his was the only character that didn't have a flashback. I think -a smart move at the time because it kind of told the message that: 'what he experienced was so terrible we can't even show it on screen. Just look at the fact that Stan killed himself over a memory.'

I wonder how this remake is going to tackle Stanley’s ordeal?

Can I also make a note of how awesome the soundtrack was in the second trailer? Creepy beyond believe.

The bits and pieces

But the apart from establishing the thematic there is a lot of fun to be had delving into all those little bits and pieces-shots to comprise most of the rest of the trailers. To give you a few examples of what I noticed:

1. It is reassuring to see several used tissues in the first shot of the first trailer. It tells you that Bill is sick, at the time, like the novel. The same goes for the varnish on the desk to waterproof the paper boat or the amount of space-related items in Bill’s room. This, I take as a reassurance that the moviemakers want to tackle the ‘dimensional element’ of the book. More on that later.

2. Bill doesn’t seem to stutter like his book counterpart. True, most of the time you hear him speak he’s in a safe environment so no anxiety to trigger it. But still; I wonder if the movie left it in?

3. That sure is one terribly creepy apothecary. On a scale of one to ten of people I do not want any medicine from he scores a comfortable twenty-six.

4. The creepy house (on Neibolt street) is very front and center in both –big- trailers. A stairway walk in the second one (some characters are missing). Stan on the floor with Richie protecting him in the first as It is growing claws from his gloves.

5. It think the dam building sequence has been replace with a ‘fun in the sun’-swimming montage.

6. Bev is perfectly cast as the tomboyish girl. I’m certain she will still have an abusive father. The question, however, is how abusive. I always preferred the non-sexual abuse in the mini-series (it’s a lot more terrible in the book) and the clear parallels between her father and her (later) terrible boyfriend.

7. Eddy running away from the Leper. This is a very quick show you really need to screenshot before you see it. Here it is . There is something chasing the boy.

8. Ben has a short but very establishing shot in the library eying a balloon. An important place in the book. But that’s about all we get of Ben.

9.  Bowers walking towards the red balloon; A clear sign of evil calling him. Maybe the switchblade is in it.

10. There is a nice shot of Mike being terrified. Mike has always filled the wise-African-American archetype/trope. The boy who provides the back story. In the mini-series it was the photo album. In this movie it follows the book and brings Mike to the old slaughterhouse. In short: Mike is going to find out that Derry has been under a spell of evil since the beginning.

11. Then there is Patrick Hocksletter. Or ’Psycho-boy’ as I call him. His face and name is on a missing poster in the first trailer. But I think you also see him on screen, alive, in the second trailer. So that would imply that he is going to be alive for a part of the movie to be one of the bullies harassing the ‘Loser’s club’. This would be interesting because this completely deranged youth is on some level even more dangerous than Pennywise. A bit more thought on him:

Concerning psycho-boy.

I always wondered why Patrick was in the book in the first place? Like a drug fuelled Stephen King thought that a simple terror-clown wasn't enough. Second I wondered why King decided to turn this character gay (or at least bi-curious/willing)?

Maybe it was a callback to King's original inspiration for this story (serial killer John Wayne Gacy who preferred teenage boys as victims). That might’ve been the reason why he started the novel with a gay couple.

Or maybe it was King's infamous weirdness when it comes to sex.

Apart from the classic fellatio-scene in Thinner. Or the deliciously inappropriate usage of the word “masturbation" to convey a feeling of guilt. I always enjoyed King’s Eyes of the dragon as an insight in King’s troubled view on sexuality. There are about three pages worth of ranting in there in which King tries to explain that a boy playing with a dollhouse doesn’t automatically make him gay. Hilarious and disturbing at the same time.

Anyway, since the character is in the movie the danger the Bowers gang pose can be upped. Because, with a true (classical) psychopath on board you might get more than you bargained for in an after school fight. Yet, he isn’t present in the famous rock-throwing battle, though.

This marks also one of the first times that an author (for me at least) kills of one of the most interesting characters before he/she can fulfill his place in the story. This is a powerful tool in any writer’s arsenal. Like Hitchcock’s Psycho killing off the protagonist in the first act.

What Stephen King told us about IT.

Stephen wasn’t the brightest bulb in the cabinet in the eighties. He was basically a drug-fueled writer coming up with things on the go. For a human this is negative. For humanity –rather positive. Because, quite simply, the bloke wrote some impressive novels during this time (Cujo, for instance, which he can’t even remember that he wrote).

But discussing It at a panel reading King explained the basic premise as follows (I’m paraphrasing): ‘I wanted to create a story that had all kinds of childhood fears –like the wolfman, or Dracula or even the mummy…I put them all together and used a tale of a clown to keep them all together (I’m truly paraphrasing but the gist is the same)’.

So IT is basically an anthology novel. Several horror stories in one.  This partly explains why it is so terrifying, But it also explains why this story is so relatable. It’s not one horror story aimed at one individual – It is a cut-barreled-shotgun firing at us all. Every fear you ever had is in this novel. As such you could honestly say that It is Stephen King’s magnus opus.

Charming Pennywise.

Now I wish to repeat the ongoing worry that I still possess for this movie: whether Pennywise is going to be charming or not. Don't forget the first time shot we saw Tim Curry's Pennywise (though a bit of a jump scare - peeking through the drying linnen) he was a charming fellow. In the current trailers, though, each reveal of Pennywise is him looking terribly evil. Not naughty, charming or even blank (in a Kuleshov-effect) but pure and utter evil.

But I guess  the studio will stay wise enough to keep from giving too much of Pennywise away. So this worry of mine will linger until the premier in September.

One could even say that they've already showed too much (the EW picture).

It'll probably be somewhere in July or August when the third trailer will come out. This time ‘round I assume we will hear a bit more of Pennywise’s voice. 

Space and other themes.

So Stephen King wrote IT during his drug-fuelled days. This explains various scenes. For instance, the fantastic finale. It is absolutely bonkers. There we have Bill traveling through some kind of eternal dimension where he meets a turtle who apologizes for throwing up the world.

Now, based on the footage of the trailers and the general feel of the trailer I can make the educated guess that the preceding novel’s ‘psychedelic scene’ in the ‘smoking hut’ is left out of the movie. But that doesn’t mean that this movie isn’t going to get ‘wonky’ on us. The main script is still written by Fukunaga who wanted to write a “new kind of horror movie”. And all the elements about space are right there in the trailer (T-shirts, models, spacecraft-toys).

So I wonder how the first movie is going to end. Is it going to be psychedelic or is it going to be ‘all out battery acid’?

Apparently Fukunaga’s original script leaked on the internet. I haven’t read it. But it’s probably easy to find.

Which brings us to part two.   

Looking forwards to part II.

So I’ve written two-and-a-half articles about the upcoming It-remake. And I’m not the only one, the whole of the internet is buzzing. Which is a showcase of how excellent a job the promotional department is doing.

My gut feeling is telling me already that part 2 will follow suit. 

Now, we already knew that this movie will be the first part of the story – the adult part is to follow a year later (27 years after the mini-series). So why not use this moment to speculate a bit about part II. What’s it going to be called? ‘It returns’, ‘It part II’, ‘Its’ –we’ll see.

What I can tell for sure is that the original structure of the miniseries has to be let go a bit.

In the book and mini-series the story starts with one of the adults getting a phone call from Mike and then  those characters remembering childhood: a flashback.

Here, since none of the adults have been cast yet, the flashback element goes away. So in the second installment of the saga the movie has to invent a new way of introducing the adult characters and linking them to their child counterparts of the previous installments. Keeping in mind how fast kids grow I hope the moviemakers shot some additional footage.

Casting the adults

So who are going to play the adults? Why not have a guessing game? It’s always fun to have a stab at fantasy casting. So why not me? I’ll just name some actors I feel are reasonably right for the part and go from there:

Bill: Devon Sawa or Nick Stahl.

Ben: Seth Green (I can't be the only one who thought about this one - yes I know he was Richie in the original.)

Bev: Clea DuVall, Laura Harris or Leelee Sobieski (I think she’s too young for the part).

Richie: Matthew Lillard or Bill Hader.

Mike: Chris Rock (I can't help it I like the man when he plays it straight) or Yasiin Bey.

Eddie: Milo Ventimiglia.

Stan: Shawn Hatosy (If the character makes it to IT II).

So basically every affordable child actor of the late '80s early '90s I could think of who also dabbled in horror.

Thank heavens I'm not in charge of casting!

Why not recast all the original kids from the mini-series?
Some of them are dead. Some of the have quit acting. Sorry.

The finale.

As we all pretty much agree the final form of Pennywise in the mini-series wasn't very impressive. After such an excellent built up it was –truth be told- a bit of a letdown.

But the original mini-series finale did have a perk or two. For instance, the reveal that Pennywise isn't as powerful as he lets himself on (he only preys on children - when they are alone). So the fact that an angry mob of adults can literally tear him apart is a nice bloody climax -but perhaps an anti-climax.

There are movies in which this technique worked. Basic Instinct (forgo the ice pick, let's continue what we're doing), Kill Bill (let's have a forty minute dialogue first) or Vertigo (a freaking nun!).

But it's a pulling-the-rug-technique that is quite hard to pull off well. But if you do manage to you've got yourselves a classic. But if you fail you really fall hard. Apart from the terrible animatronics it was this element that let the original mini-series-finale down.

Final words (maybe).

So there you have it. I thought I was done after the first article – then I thought I was done after the second one. But ideas keep floating towards the surface.

I’m rather sure now that I’ll probably write another entry in this series. I’m actually looking forwards to the character posters. Because, I think, not doing that –at the very least only digital- would be a missed opportunity. Here we have a book with seven main characters and one evil clown. So why not ‘pull a Game of Thrones’ and create some favorites. Moreover, in next year’s movie you can use the adult character posters to link the characters.

See you around…B-, B-, B-, Boo!