Kenny, great diagnosis and analysis of IT, both the movie and the novel. But, wouldn't you agree that Stephen King stuffed so much in the novel (as he typically does in his novels) that readers could finish the novel with differing perspectives, and therefore, wouldn't it be up to the screenwriter to pick certain parts from the novel to weave a screenplay short enough to make a two-hour-long film? (Muschechetti also made a sequel, which I think did a good job of emphasizing each character's flaws, while delving into the origins of IT.)
Yes, and that would be so hard to do with any novel of that length. Btw, I loved The Haunting of Hill House, and I’m pretty sure King is a fan, too. I can’t remember which book it was, but I’m almost positive he references that story
Absolutely! I think we’re always going to see a director’s interpretation, I just think they both could have done a better job. IT was over 1k pages, so maybe it would have been better to serialize it instead of trying to squeeze it into a couple of movies. What do you think?
Hahaha...Having taken some screenwriting classes, and understand that Stephen King fans want his adaptations to follow original source, I think that the it would have been better as a series rather than two films. That way, you would have more time to make it your own, yet maintain the atmosphere that Stephen King fans love. I would also argue that the guy to write the script is Mike Flanagan. (Highly recommend The Haunting of Hill House. Even though it's about a dysfunctional family instead of seven strangers living in a haunted mansion, Flanagan tells it in a way that is still true to Jackson's novel.
I think the thing that handicaps King is his too-deep flaws of his characters. It makes it hard to distinguish the one protagonist you want to root for. (His short stories, like Secret Window, are more digestible. Therefore, those screenplays and movies seem less cluttered.
What I would do as a screenwriting is ask myself, can I write a 90-page script? If yes, I would be sure to maintain King's underlying message, write the scenes exactly how they play out in King's story, ratchet up the tension, and then go from there. I would tell the story my way, but stick with King's signature motifs. Character archetypes. Multiverses that tie characters to each other.
I would make these things directly move the story forward. If they don't directly move the story forward, I would leave them out.
Kenny, great diagnosis and analysis of IT, both the movie and the novel. But, wouldn't you agree that Stephen King stuffed so much in the novel (as he typically does in his novels) that readers could finish the novel with differing perspectives, and therefore, wouldn't it be up to the screenwriter to pick certain parts from the novel to weave a screenplay short enough to make a two-hour-long film? (Muschechetti also made a sequel, which I think did a good job of emphasizing each character's flaws, while delving into the origins of IT.)
Yes, and that would be so hard to do with any novel of that length. Btw, I loved The Haunting of Hill House, and I’m pretty sure King is a fan, too. I can’t remember which book it was, but I’m almost positive he references that story
Yes, he did. I read his memoir, On Writing, and he mentioned Hill House there. He might have mentioned it elsewhere too. :)
Absolutely! I think we’re always going to see a director’s interpretation, I just think they both could have done a better job. IT was over 1k pages, so maybe it would have been better to serialize it instead of trying to squeeze it into a couple of movies. What do you think?
Hahaha...Having taken some screenwriting classes, and understand that Stephen King fans want his adaptations to follow original source, I think that the it would have been better as a series rather than two films. That way, you would have more time to make it your own, yet maintain the atmosphere that Stephen King fans love. I would also argue that the guy to write the script is Mike Flanagan. (Highly recommend The Haunting of Hill House. Even though it's about a dysfunctional family instead of seven strangers living in a haunted mansion, Flanagan tells it in a way that is still true to Jackson's novel.
I think the thing that handicaps King is his too-deep flaws of his characters. It makes it hard to distinguish the one protagonist you want to root for. (His short stories, like Secret Window, are more digestible. Therefore, those screenplays and movies seem less cluttered.
What I would do as a screenwriting is ask myself, can I write a 90-page script? If yes, I would be sure to maintain King's underlying message, write the scenes exactly how they play out in King's story, ratchet up the tension, and then go from there. I would tell the story my way, but stick with King's signature motifs. Character archetypes. Multiverses that tie characters to each other.
I would make these things directly move the story forward. If they don't directly move the story forward, I would leave them out.
Both versions gave me a taste of the book, and that was satisfying for the most part. I’ve yet to watch the new show.
The show is pretty good. As long as you go into it knowing most of it is outside King’s imagination, I think you’ll love it