New film still coming of Stephen King's It

News Simon Brew 12 Feb 2014 - 07:01
Stephen King's It

Pennywise may yet be coming to cinema screens, as Cary Fukunaga is confirmed to still be working on Stephen King's It...

Here's a project that's been rumoured for a while that looks like it may soon be happening: a new take on Stephen King's It. Already adapted successfully for television, with Tim Curry taking on one of his best roles as Pennywise the clown (we got a video release in the UK of the whole thing edited into one three hour production), the new It is on the radar of director Cary Fukunaga.

Fukunaga has thus far brought Sin Nombre and Jane Eyre to the big screen, and on the smaller one he's been winning acclaim for his work on True Detective. He's currently working on a low budget film with Idris Elba called Beasts Of No Nation. But after that? It may well be on the agenda.

Chatting to Collider, producer Dan Lin revealed that "Cary Fukunaga is writing and directing Stephen King’s It for me, and I’m really excited for that. So I’m hoping that’ll be his next movie after the indie he’s shooting in Africa. I love what he did with True Detective. I think it’s a great sample for Stephen King’s It.  So I’m really excited about that".

Fukanaga has been attached to make the new It for nearly two years now, seemingly with no progress being made. As it turns out, it may get a chance to movie ahead this year. As we hear more, we'll pass the news on.

Collider.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

I always thought this would play better as two movies. Open the first film with the Loser Club as they are in the 1980's and get used to them and at the Stan Uris bath scene go back to the 1950's and play it out as one big arc. It does away with the need for the constant flashbacks. Then the second movie is set it the 1980's when the Loser's Clubs face It for the final battle. I've said it on these pages before HBO and Showtime are the perfect home for King's epics, it would give them the time and space to develop. Its an odd thought but if they filmed It in the way I pointed out and staying true to the book, they'd both be period films...God I'm getting old!

I think this is spot on. The TV show was both messy and too brief - and just too cartoonish.
We're in the wiser world of Game of Thrones and breaking bad, TV can be treated properly.

Maybe it could even be scary this time.

We need a good, edgy, gritty TV horror. IT could be ideal. American Horror Story went some way to helping, but that was more weird than truly scary, for me, and a little bit silly as well (though I've only watched the first season so far). Something like the scary episodes of the X-Files before it went down the pan.

The US has a great horror/sci-fi inheritance - X-Files but also the Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits. But the strengths in those shows were the one-off creepy stories which really worked (we have some in Who)... something like It would be an opportunity to take that creepy originality and stretch it to a full, scary plot over a whole series.

American Horror Story definitely gave it a good start.

It is too much to fit into one film. Also, the final battle - The Ritual of Chud - needs to play out simultaneously in '58 and '85. That's very much the point, and it's how the Losers were able to defeat IT. In '58 they were children with adult qualities, and in '85 they were adults with a child's imagination. Neither an adult nor a child were a match for Pennywise, so the Turtle made them something else: in both time periods, they were neither child nor adult, but something altogether different and more powerful, and IT wasn't prepared for that. It's very much tied into the theme of the book. For instance, the Derry Library is separated into the Adult Library and the Children's Library, and in the period '58 to '85, they're connected by a glass walkway. Ben watches people walk to and fro (and uses it as a template for his most famous building). It's also symbolises how Bill can reach back into his childhood to funnel stories into his adult novels. Plus you have the Dam in the Barrens, with the Losers symbolically stopping up the overflowing river of time, halting it in '58 - they stay preternaturally young as adults, and retain their youthful qualities. In the storm of '85, the glass walkway explodes and from then on, to get between the two worlds, "you have to go the long way round." So there's a magical, temporal and symbolic connection between the two time periods that enables The Ritual of Chud, and somehow that needs to be seen on screen. Morphing the child and adult faces as they simultaneously enact the Ritual, perhaps? I don't know, but it's hellish difficult to film something like that while retaining the - often overlooked - depth of the book.

For me, IT should be a tv series not a film. It is too long and episodic to work as a single movie but would be awesome as a 16-part boxset!!!

Wow pistachiowildebeestt you know your sh IT! You are 100% right in everything you say but I dealt in the Hollywood factor. They are going to dumb it down to nth degree! It will be kids v monsters and then the adult versions vs monsters! I bet none of the Derry interludes will be in a finished film and they're integral to the story. Its been a while since I've reread the novel but everything you say rings bells in my head.The one purely cinematic moment I do remember from the book is when they walk into the hotel at the end of the book and Bev? sees their younger selves in the mirror...that would be worth the price of a ticket alone!

Haha someone's written an essay on this I bet! Or maybe this stuff occurs to your magic brain just as you read.

In terms of cinematic moments, Bev's bloody bathroom was a striking image.

Excellent explanation! I'd also like to point out that the climax in the flashback could never, every be put onscreen. Can you imagine any Hollywood film brave enough to do that?

As long as they still leave out the chapter that I skipped at the end.... I could not beLIEVE that stuff was in a book.

But if you skipped it... then how did you know what was in it?

HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?

The first clue was when Beverly and... Dude (my memory is struggling) were at the hotel, she remembered having sex with all of them. I said "there's no way King would show that". I was wrong. And at the beginning of said chapter (no I didn't skip the whole thing, like you said how else would I know?) I knew what was about to happen, skipped to the next one, finished the book, and changed my rating of it from 10 to 1. Can't say zero because i enjoyed the rest of the book. I was once a horny kid sure, but now I have kids. And I was thoroughly appalled. GOOD DAY!

Well now I know!

I myself have never been allowed to touch a book, so can not comment on the scene of which you speak.

Good day to YOU, sir!

I'm sorry cuz I'm sure you didn't wanna know. I didn't wanna know! I've read the excuses people make for King online and reject all of em. Utterly repugnant. I'll stick to the movie! I'll watch the new one, I'm pretty sure they'll skip that part. I hope.

Ok before I basically-agree-with-you, my one caveat:
There is nothing inherently wrong with having shocking or disturbing content in books.

When I read THIS scene, personally I thought it was unnecessary and random and off-putting. Nothing wrong with shocking/disturbing content, but it added nothing to the book - and that was the main problem. Stuff like that needs justification, and it's just not in the text.

OVERALL though, I still rate IT highly. (Frankly, King's overall work has so many problematic scenes and characters that even as a fan you have to be aware of it)

Without Tim Curry I don't have high hopes for this. He MADE that film.

Sponsored Links