• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

IT - Original Vs. New - there is only one true Pennywise ( Beep Beep, Richie!)

Asclepius

Asclepius

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
9,214
Location
Europe
...how will Bill Skarsgard rate; compared to Tim Curry.

Tim Curry was pretty epically creepy; not to mention, he has an amazing history in film and is not just charismatic but is just fucking amazing at inhabiting any acting role he undertook and his onscreen presence alone; takes a mediocre film into a noticable one - not to mention that sultry voice... Am sceptical about improving on a fantastic thing.


 
Last edited:
^ Do :)


Think it was prety fab except for the actors playing the 'Adult version of the kids' - they really didn't do the book/film, the justice deserved but everything else ( given the budget; era, context) was pretty well done... considering.
 
The new IT owns the old IT. The tv mini series has always been extremely overrated nostalgia that doesn't hold up on repeat viewings. Sure, Tim Curry's version of Pennywise was brilliant, but it doesn't even come close to making up for the rest of it.

I think Skarsgård brings a lot to the character. The writing, acting, production, direction, etc is just miles and miles ahead of the 90s version. There's no competition, really.
 
^ Well, of course, it does. :)



...Wouldn't be a difficult endeavor given the low-budget, awful acting.

I have only seen clips and trailers, yet. Point being, that Curry's Pennywise was a wonderfully creepy mix of charismatic humor and evil, with simple make-up - therefore the talent and skill of the actor added more substance to a terrible film; that would otherwise have a cardboard appeal, at best. Also, the new film hones itself on stealing the best frames - which is tbph, just lazy and unimaginative.

Haven't seen Skarsgård or film, so obviously, my judgment is just slightly redundant; in context - however, having seen his interviews...it brings home just how lackluster the desire for actual on-screen 'presence' is in recent times, in cinema. If the quality of an otherise terrible movie( T.V. series) could be enlived by some great shots, a good story and more notably, a brilliant actor in cheap-make-up, it makes me question how critical contemporary audiences are, of actual genuine skills and the particular nuances of artists that actually have them. Is criticism slowly being eroded from the masses, nowadays?...seems like a nice complacent, apathetic culture is being cultivated by popular culture - but when was it not, I guess. (Baa!) :)


...also, define ; 'a lot' (regarding Skarsgård) Your explaination of his appeal or talent, lacks well...anything tbh, slightly strengthens my forementioned, argument.:|
 
Last edited:
Basically, what I meant was... he had big shoes to fill and he found a completely unique way to do it. He didn't try to imitate Tim Curry. The bouncy, playful effect he gave his voice was nothing like Curry's, who was more irreverent and almost sarcastic, or something.

Skarsgård's Pennywise was more creature like. Curry's was more like a demonic possession of an actual clown, not an ancient creature who simply chose a clown as one of his identities to lure in children. Curry scared the piss out of me in both It and Legend, and if I could give one critique to his portrayal of Pennywise, I wish he would have given him a more "other-worldly" feel similar to what he did with Darkness in Legend.
 
The direction for the new Pennywise character was based on the Pennywise in the book, accordig to what I've read, which is always good when the film is also high budget and well-made. IT 2017 does look fantastic but Curry really was exceptional in his former role and made it his own. Apparently he based him on a JW Gacy type of character - more an embodyment of human evil than supernatural evil.
 
...my ill-made, former point was that the role of horror was once to animate and metaphorise the social parasites and ills that contaminates us (individual/socially), on a sub-conscious level; artists earned their graft but produced a wealth of media and entertainment that was therapeutic...I think this is lacking - there is a void at present; in a pop-culture genre that is hungry for a cathartic purpose as an audience ...lest we/they become more zombified and understimulated, imho. Leisure is only as leisurely as the leisure makes us.

Apart from 'Mother!' that was on screen lately; I haven't been aware of any movies that serve anything but catatonia and compliance.
Obviously, my own subjectivity is a bias but we are all human...and boredom is a shared experience.
 
Last edited:
mal3volent said:
The new IT owns the old IT. The tv mini series has always been extremely overrated nostalgia that doesn't hold up on repeat viewings. Sure, Tim Curry's version of Pennywise was brilliant, but it doesn't even come close to making up for the rest of it.

I think Skarsgård brings a lot to the character. The writing, acting, production, direction, etc is just miles and miles ahead of the 90s version. There's no competition, really.
Click to expand...

Agree with you here, Malevolent. Despite my nostalgic grumpiness, finally saw 'IT' - what a phenomenal remake. Just a beaut of a film. It respected the entire concept of King's imagination and emotional intelligence, with such grace. ;)

Eddie Kaspbrak: What are these They're gazebos! They're bullshit!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top