Your favorite Horror films

njnancy

Vitalogensia said:

Dr. Delight said:

IT: Chapter Two trailer drops this Thursday.

Just watched it at work, during the day, with the volume low.  I was nervous the entire time; can't wait to see this!

Stephen King books are so hard to translate to the screen. The remake was much more in keeping with the spirit of the book than the first try, which was lame to be kind. Is Stephen King a consultant on the Chapter Two? (I will always prefer the book to anything they put on the screen, but that's just me.)

eeriepadave

looking forward to It

Spiritual_Chaos

To much CGI in the first one.

MayDay10

Im in the minority, but I didnt really dig It.  I thought it was a poor adaptation, and actually a lesser adaptation than the TV series.  They just made the clown scarier, which pleases the masses.

Spiritual_Chaos

I don't know why, but I've seen the IT chapter 2 trailer like 6-7 times now.

PJ_Soul

I absolutely LOVED IT part 1. I actually saw it twice in the theatre.  I can't wait for part 2!!!!!!! I thought it was a good adaptation - it got the feel of the book perfectly IMO. But I despised the made-for-TV one. What a piece of shit that was.

Spiritual_Chaos

PJ_Soul said:

I absolutely LOVED IT part 1. I actually saw it twice in the theatre.  I can't wait for part 2!!!!!!! I thought it was a good adaptation - it got the feel of the book perfectly IMO. But I despised the made-for-TV one. What a piece of shit that was.

Should have been set in the 50s like the book.

Should have championed practical effects instead of the CGI overload.

But the rest I liked.

PJ_Soul

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

I absolutely LOVED IT part 1. I actually saw it twice in the theatre.  I can't wait for part 2!!!!!!! I thought it was a good adaptation - it got the feel of the book perfectly IMO. But I despised the made-for-TV one. What a piece of shit that was.

Should have been set in the 50s like the book.

Should have championed practical effects instead of the CGI overload.

But the rest I liked.

I didn't mind that they changed the decade at all - I don't think that had a negative impact on the feel of the story. And I think it was probably a wise choice just considering the mass audience. They wanted a block buster that appealed to all ages, and updating it to the 80s right when Stranger Things was a massive was for sure a great idea, especially for the younger generations of movie-goers.

Dr. Delight

I agree with Soul, usually the case.
And they are saying that the second chapter is going to be a lot bloodier than the first. Very excited.

hedonist

Mmmm, blood  

Though not a horror film, I thought Stand by Me did a pretty good rendition of the book. 

Now, Thinner? Yikes. 

Spiritual_Chaos

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

I absolutely LOVED IT part 1. I actually saw it twice in the theatre.  I can't wait for part 2!!!!!!! I thought it was a good adaptation - it got the feel of the book perfectly IMO. But I despised the made-for-TV one. What a piece of shit that was.

Should have been set in the 50s like the book.

Should have championed practical effects instead of the CGI overload.

But the rest I liked.

I didn't mind that they changed the decade at all - I don't think that had a negative impact on the feel of the story. And I think it was probably a wise choice just considering the mass audience. They wanted a block buster that appealed to all ages, and updating it to the 80s right when Stranger Things was a massive was for sure a great idea, especially for the younger generations of movie-goers.

I think being close as one can when adapting, has value in itself. So I do feel it negatively impacted the adaption, and did not add anything (if not Chapter II taking place in present day, does so for a specific story-related reason. Like Pennywise turning out to be Trump, or being the one holding Pearl Jams new album back).

Setting it in the 80s because of piggybacking on a trend and Stranger Things being popular, is therefore to me negative.

Setting the first one in the 50s, and the second in the 80s would mean you would get some of that great 80s nostalgic feel now instead. And they could have honored and included things like "Universal monsters" like the book.

And, with a good trailer and a good film - a younger of generations of movie-goers would show up regardless.

I actually critiqued an adapted script last summer, based on a children's book. And most of my feedback concerned changes from the source material, and questions about what it added. So, it's just something I care about.

And yes, Spiderman shouldn't scream out he is Peter Parker to everyone he meets in the MCU, because that's not how it is in the comic book.

dankind

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

I absolutely LOVED IT part 1. I actually saw it twice in the theatre.  I can't wait for part 2!!!!!!! I thought it was a good adaptation - it got the feel of the book perfectly IMO. But I despised the made-for-TV one. What a piece of shit that was.

Should have been set in the 50s like the book.

Should have championed practical effects instead of the CGI overload.

But the rest I liked.

I didn't mind that they changed the decade at all - I don't think that had a negative impact on the feel of the story. And I think it was probably a wise choice just considering the mass audience. They wanted a block buster that appealed to all ages, and updating it to the 80s right when Stranger Things was a massive was for sure a great idea, especially for the younger generations of movie-goers.

I think being close as one can when adapting, has value in itself. So I do feel it negatively impacted the adaption, and did not add anything (if not Chapter II taking place in present day, does so for a specific story-related reason. Like Pennywise turning out to be Trump, or being the one holding Pearl Jams new album back).

Setting it in the 80s because of piggybacking on a trend and Stranger Things being popular, is therefore to me negative.

Setting the first one in the 50s, and the second in the 80s would mean you would get some of that great 80s nostalgic feel now instead. And they could have honored and included things like "Universal monsters" like the book.

And, with a good trailer and a good film - a younger of generations of movie-goers would show up regardless.

I actually critiqued an adapted script last summer, based on a children's book. And most of my feedback concerned changes from the source material, and questions about what it added. So, it's just something I care about.

And yes, Spiderman shouldn't scream out he is Peter Parker to everyone he meets in the MCU, because that's not how it is in the comic book.

I read all of that, but it still doesn’t change my mind that Kubrick>King. 

Poncier

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

I absolutely LOVED IT part 1. I actually saw it twice in the theatre.  I can't wait for part 2!!!!!!! I thought it was a good adaptation - it got the feel of the book perfectly IMO. But I despised the made-for-TV one. What a piece of shit that was.

Should have been set in the 50s like the book.

Should have championed practical effects instead of the CGI overload.

But the rest I liked.

I didn't mind that they changed the decade at all - I don't think that had a negative impact on the feel of the story. And I think it was probably a wise choice just considering the mass audience. They wanted a block buster that appealed to all ages, and updating it to the 80s right when Stranger Things was a massive was for sure a great idea, especially for the younger generations of movie-goers.

And yes, Spiderman shouldn't scream out he is Peter Parker to everyone he meets 

Wait...what? 
Peter Parker is Spiderman? Now it kind of makes sense why he always disappears.

Spiritual_Chaos

dankind said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

I absolutely LOVED IT part 1. I actually saw it twice in the theatre.  I can't wait for part 2!!!!!!! I thought it was a good adaptation - it got the feel of the book perfectly IMO. But I despised the made-for-TV one. What a piece of shit that was.

Should have been set in the 50s like the book.

Should have championed practical effects instead of the CGI overload.

But the rest I liked.

I didn't mind that they changed the decade at all - I don't think that had a negative impact on the feel of the story. And I think it was probably a wise choice just considering the mass audience. They wanted a block buster that appealed to all ages, and updating it to the 80s right when Stranger Things was a massive was for sure a great idea, especially for the younger generations of movie-goers.

I think being close as one can when adapting, has value in itself. So I do feel it negatively impacted the adaption, and did not add anything (if not Chapter II taking place in present day, does so for a specific story-related reason. Like Pennywise turning out to be Trump, or being the one holding Pearl Jams new album back).

Setting it in the 80s because of piggybacking on a trend and Stranger Things being popular, is therefore to me negative.

Setting the first one in the 50s, and the second in the 80s would mean you would get some of that great 80s nostalgic feel now instead. And they could have honored and included things like "Universal monsters" like the book.

And, with a good trailer and a good film - a younger of generations of movie-goers would show up regardless.

I actually critiqued an adapted script last summer, based on a children's book. And most of my feedback concerned changes from the source material, and questions about what it added. So, it's just something I care about.

And yes, Spiderman shouldn't scream out he is Peter Parker to everyone he meets in the MCU, because that's not how it is in the comic book.

I read all of that, but it still doesn’t change my mind that Kubrick>King. 

Okey, now watch my math:    The Shining (book) > The Shining (movie) = The Shining (miniseries)

(Love Kubricks movie ofc, watched it a few years back on 35mm in the cinema )

Spiritual_Chaos

Poncier said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

I absolutely LOVED IT part 1. I actually saw it twice in the theatre.  I can't wait for part 2!!!!!!! I thought it was a good adaptation - it got the feel of the book perfectly IMO. But I despised the made-for-TV one. What a piece of shit that was.

Should have been set in the 50s like the book.

Should have championed practical effects instead of the CGI overload.

But the rest I liked.

I didn't mind that they changed the decade at all - I don't think that had a negative impact on the feel of the story. And I think it was probably a wise choice just considering the mass audience. They wanted a block buster that appealed to all ages, and updating it to the 80s right when Stranger Things was a massive was for sure a great idea, especially for the younger generations of movie-goers.

And yes, Spiderman shouldn't scream out he is Peter Parker to everyone he meets 

Wait...what? 
Peter Parker is Spiderman? Now it kind of makes sense why he always disappears.

dankind

Spiritual_Chaos said:

dankind said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

I absolutely LOVED IT part 1. I actually saw it twice in the theatre.  I can't wait for part 2!!!!!!! I thought it was a good adaptation - it got the feel of the book perfectly IMO. But I despised the made-for-TV one. What a piece of shit that was.

Should have been set in the 50s like the book.

Should have championed practical effects instead of the CGI overload.

But the rest I liked.

I didn't mind that they changed the decade at all - I don't think that had a negative impact on the feel of the story. And I think it was probably a wise choice just considering the mass audience. They wanted a block buster that appealed to all ages, and updating it to the 80s right when Stranger Things was a massive was for sure a great idea, especially for the younger generations of movie-goers.

I think being close as one can when adapting, has value in itself. So I do feel it negatively impacted the adaption, and did not add anything (if not Chapter II taking place in present day, does so for a specific story-related reason. Like Pennywise turning out to be Trump, or being the one holding Pearl Jams new album back).

Setting it in the 80s because of piggybacking on a trend and Stranger Things being popular, is therefore to me negative.

Setting the first one in the 50s, and the second in the 80s would mean you would get some of that great 80s nostalgic feel now instead. And they could have honored and included things like "Universal monsters" like the book.

And, with a good trailer and a good film - a younger of generations of movie-goers would show up regardless.

I actually critiqued an adapted script last summer, based on a children's book. And most of my feedback concerned changes from the source material, and questions about what it added. So, it's just something I care about.

And yes, Spiderman shouldn't scream out he is Peter Parker to everyone he meets in the MCU, because that's not how it is in the comic book.

I read all of that, but it still doesn’t change my mind that Kubrick>King. 

Okey, now watch my math:    The Shining (book) > The Shining (movie) = The Shining (miniseries)

(Love Kubricks movie ofc, watched it a few years back on 35mm in the cinema )

The Kubrick film is so much better than the King novel. It's so much creepier to not know what the fuck is going on in some of those scenes and situations. King likes to hold his readers' hands so that they never have to think for themselves. He even went so far as to add 400 mostly useless pages to an already published and already long novel. I gave up on him around then. He doesn't want anything left open to interpretation.

I'd go so far as to say that nearly every Kubrick film for which I've read the book (Spartacus, Red Alert, A Clockwork Orange, The Luck of Barry Lyndon, The Shining, The Short-Timers) is better than the source material from which it was adapted. The exception being Lolita, which is a fantastic film with great performances all around, but Nabokov's imagery, poetic pacing and impassioned prose win that bout by TKO.

PJ_Soul

dankind said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

dankind said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

I absolutely LOVED IT part 1. I actually saw it twice in the theatre.  I can't wait for part 2!!!!!!! I thought it was a good adaptation - it got the feel of the book perfectly IMO. But I despised the made-for-TV one. What a piece of shit that was.

Should have been set in the 50s like the book.

Should have championed practical effects instead of the CGI overload.

But the rest I liked.

I didn't mind that they changed the decade at all - I don't think that had a negative impact on the feel of the story. And I think it was probably a wise choice just considering the mass audience. They wanted a block buster that appealed to all ages, and updating it to the 80s right when Stranger Things was a massive was for sure a great idea, especially for the younger generations of movie-goers.

I think being close as one can when adapting, has value in itself. So I do feel it negatively impacted the adaption, and did not add anything (if not Chapter II taking place in present day, does so for a specific story-related reason. Like Pennywise turning out to be Trump, or being the one holding Pearl Jams new album back).

Setting it in the 80s because of piggybacking on a trend and Stranger Things being popular, is therefore to me negative.

Setting the first one in the 50s, and the second in the 80s would mean you would get some of that great 80s nostalgic feel now instead. And they could have honored and included things like "Universal monsters" like the book.

And, with a good trailer and a good film - a younger of generations of movie-goers would show up regardless.

I actually critiqued an adapted script last summer, based on a children's book. And most of my feedback concerned changes from the source material, and questions about what it added. So, it's just something I care about.

And yes, Spiderman shouldn't scream out he is Peter Parker to everyone he meets in the MCU, because that's not how it is in the comic book.

I read all of that, but it still doesn’t change my mind that Kubrick>King. 

Okey, now watch my math:    The Shining (book) > The Shining (movie) = The Shining (miniseries)

(Love Kubricks movie ofc, watched it a few years back on 35mm in the cinema )

The Kubrick film is so much better than the King novel. It's so much creepier to not know what the fuck is going on in some of those scenes and situations. King likes to hold his readers' hands so that they never have to think for themselves. He even went so far as to add 400 mostly useless pages to an already published and already long novel. I gave up on him around then. He doesn't want anything left open to interpretation.

I'd go so far as to say that nearly every Kubrick film for which I've read the book (Spartacus, Red Alert, A Clockwork Orange, The Luck of Barry Lyndon, The Shining, The Short-Timers) is better than the source material from which it was adapted. The exception being Lolita, which is a fantastic film with great performances all around, but Nabokov's imagery, poetic pacing and impassioned prose win that bout by TKO.

For me, the Kubrick film SUUUUUUUUUUUUCKS. I actually hate it passionately, though I admit a portion of that hate comes from the knowledge that so many think it's so great when it is actually so crappy and barely even makes any sense. I can, however, appreciate certain cinematic techniques that Kubrick used in it. 

I absolutely LOVE the book.

I don't care for the mini-series, but it's better than the Kubrick version, because at least there is some character development and the shining actually has a meaningful place in the story.

njnancy

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

dankind said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJ_Soul said:

I absolutely LOVED IT part 1. I actually saw it twice in the theatre.  I can't wait for part 2!!!!!!! I thought it was a good adaptation - it got the feel of the book perfectly IMO. But I despised the made-for-TV one. What a piece of shit that was.

Should have been set in the 50s like the book.

Should have championed practical effects instead of the CGI overload.

But the rest I liked.

I didn't mind that they changed the decade at all - I don't think that had a negative impact on the feel of the story. And I think it was probably a wise choice just considering the mass audience. They wanted a block buster that appealed to all ages, and updating it to the 80s right when Stranger Things was a massive was for sure a great idea, especially for the younger generations of movie-goers.

I think being close as one can when adapting, has value in itself. So I do feel it negatively impacted the adaption, and did not add anything (if not Chapter II taking place in present day, does so for a specific story-related reason. Like Pennywise turning out to be Trump, or being the one holding Pearl Jams new album back).

Setting it in the 80s because of piggybacking on a trend and Stranger Things being popular, is therefore to me negative.

Setting the first one in the 50s, and the second in the 80s would mean you would get some of that great 80s nostalgic feel now instead. And they could have honored and included things like "Universal monsters" like the book.

And, with a good trailer and a good film - a younger of generations of movie-goers would show up regardless.

I actually critiqued an adapted script last summer, based on a children's book. And most of my feedback concerned changes from the source material, and questions about what it added. So, it's just something I care about.

And yes, Spiderman shouldn't scream out he is Peter Parker to everyone he meets in the MCU, because that's not how it is in the comic book.

I read all of that, but it still doesn’t change my mind that Kubrick>King. 

Okey, now watch my math:    The Shining (book) > The Shining (movie) = The Shining (miniseries)

(Love Kubricks movie ofc, watched it a few years back on 35mm in the cinema )

The Kubrick film is so much better than the King novel. It's so much creepier to not know what the fuck is going on in some of those scenes and situations. King likes to hold his readers' hands so that they never have to think for themselves. He even went so far as to add 400 mostly useless pages to an already published and already long novel. I gave up on him around then. He doesn't want anything left open to interpretation.

I'd go so far as to say that nearly every Kubrick film for which I've read the book (Spartacus, Red Alert, A Clockwork Orange, The Luck of Barry Lyndon, The Shining, The Short-Timers) is better than the source material from which it was adapted. The exception being Lolita, which is a fantastic film with great performances all around, but Nabokov's imagery, poetic pacing and impassioned prose win that bout by TKO.

For me, the Kubrick film SUUUUUUUUUUUUCKS. I actually hate it passionately, though I admit a portion of that hate comes from the knowledge that so many think it's so great when it is actually so crappy and barely even makes any sense. I can, however, appreciate certain cinematic techniques that Kubrick used in it. 

I absolutely LOVE the book.

I don't care for the mini-series, but it's better than the Kubrick version, because at least there is some character development and the shining actually has a meaningful place in the story.

Kubrick is excellent at what he does.

King never has needless pages in his novels, nor does he hold your hand. He weaves a story better than almost anyone and his mind is a creative masterpiece.  

The Shining is a good movie, King hated it because it does not reflect the true spirit of the book. I agree. Kubrick did what he did and it is a classic, but in no way can his adaptation touch the novel. 

PJ_Soul

Yeah, it doesn't touch the novel.... But I also think that the screenplay stinks. I mean, really, the character development is nil. It makes no sense that Jack Nicholson acts like he's insane literally from the second the movie starts, rather than the hotel making him insane. Wendy is just a simpering wuss the entire movie. Yeah, yeah, she manages to get her kid out of the hotel... seconds before he's literally going to be slaughtered, and out to run around in a blizzard. She knocked Jack unconscious practically by accident, and I swear, the way she holds that bat is so frustrating. Danny really doesn't even play a meaningful part in the story at all, nor does his shining, plus the parent-child relationship is never developed at all. There is no connection made between the hotel and Danny's shining really, and the fact that the women is in the room could just as well have been a haunting completely unrelated to the shining for all anyone who hadn't read the book knew. Halloran plays almost no useful role whatsoever, and clearly the ONLY reason Kubrick kept him in the script at all was so that Wendy had a working vehicle to escape in at the end. He didn't even face any resistance from the hotel itself when returning there. Nothing. Why in the world anything bad at all is going on at the Overlook is never explained in any decent way, and no, I don't think that enough was provided for any worthwhile audience conjecture. And why in the fuck is Jack suddenly in that old photo at the end of the film, in the 20s? The movie doesn't tie that together - it makes no sense. And at the end, the hotel doesn't even kill Jack - that death was just plain old dumb. These are all the reasons I hate that movie.

The hotel in the film does look exactly like I imagined the hotel to look while reading the book though (minus the all-important boiler room of course, and the playground and the topiary.....). And I like the sound that the Big Wheels makes on the floor when Danny rides it around, lol.

I like Kubrick, but not for this pile of crap film, haha.

MayDay10

Im not a big fan of the movie.  The book is great.