Stephen King's The Stand

JP Liz V1

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/01/31/stephen-king-stand-movie/

Stephen King‘s 1978 novel The Stand is being made into a feature film, according to the Hollywood Reporter. Warner Bros. and CBS Films will reportedly co-develop and co-produce the feature, and King is said to be involved in some way as well. The novel, about a group of survivors living in a post-apocalyptic world destroyed by a super virus, was previously made into an eight-hour ABC miniseries (featuring Molly Ringwald, Rob Lowe, Ruby Dee, and Gary Sinise) in 1994, and Marvel has recently adapted the story into a successful comic book series.

I'm thinking this could go as a trilogy of films - Lets hope they the casting right

Sad Professor

I love The Stand and hope this happens, but only if they get a good director and do it right. The miniseries was terrible. I'm not sure it needs a trilogy though. A single 3 hour film would be enough IMO.

humanji

There's a hell of a lot going on in the book for a 3 hour film. Granted, a lot can be cut down, though there a some scenes that can be considered superflous yet are amazing and it would be a shame to lose them.

But since they've finally got the go ahead for the Dark Tower tv show and films, it could be possible that something similar could happen here.

Sticky_Fingers

Sad Professor wrote: »

I love The Stand and hope this happens, but only if they get a good director and do it right. The miniseries was terrible. I'm not sure it needs a trilogy though. A single 3 hour film would be enough IMO.

While not top draw stuff the TV miniseries was alright, it remained fairly close to the original story and apart from some woeful acting (I'm looking at you Molly Ringwald :mad:) it was a decent effort, plus the opening scene and music was absolutely brilliant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN8kUGETTFA

super_furry

I loved the book and it remains one of three favourite films ever, but I'm not sure how much more than the mini-series they can do.

Otis Driftwood

Ooohhhh,I do love The Stand and didnt hate the mini series.Could be brilliant or could be an unmitigated disaster like Dreamcatcher.Will be interesting to see who gets the reins for this one.

Sad Professor

I don't think the film has to include everything from the book. I much prefer the shorter original edition of The Stand anyway. Writers have editors for a reason. King made a mess of the "uncut" edition. It's sloppy and littered with errors (like a lot of his later work). But unfortunately it's the only edition of the book in print anymore.

And whoever makes it, they need change that ending. A film audience would burst out laughing at the book ending. Deus ex machina is fine when it's done right (see Toy Story 3), but King was far too literal about it. I'd like to see a proper cinematic adaptation, like The Shining was. A filmmaker who understands what makes the book great but isn't afraid to cut stuff and make it their own.

Anyone reading the graphic novel series? I'm waiting until it finishes to buy it. It's been going forever.

Sticky_Fingers

Sad Professor wrote: »

And whoever makes it, they need change that ending. A film audience would burst out laughing at the book ending. Deus ex machina is fine when it's done right (see Toy Story 3), but King was far too literal about it. I'd like to see a proper cinematic adaptation, like The Shining was. A filmmaker who understands what makes the book great but isn't afraid to cut stuff and make it their own.

Anyone reading the graphic novel series? I'm waiting until it finishes to buy it. It's been going forever.

Agree with you about the ending, it was pretty lame though he said himself that he was suffering from terrible writers block at the time and couldn't find a good way of ending the story. Personally I never really liked the whole supernatural element of the story, it always seemed a bit off to me, still a good read though.

Corkfeen

This is beginning to push it abit..... Another King Remake/adaptation in the works.

SPOILER ALERT !!

Beaks here...

Gage wants to play again.

According to the L.A. Times' Steven Zeitchik, Paramount is digging up a new adaptation of Stephen King's PET SEMATARY. I know there are folks who enjoy the Mary Lambert-directed 1989 film (which King scripted), but aside from (spoiler!) Fred Gwynne getting ****ed up by a zombie toddler, I have no affection for it. The book scared the hell out of me as a kid, but the movie, while narratively faithful, played like straight-up camp.

So maybe a new take isn't an awful idea - especially if they can get a better handle on the creepy tone of the novel. The screenplay is currently being written by Matthew Greenberg (who had a part in adapting King's 1408; he also co-wrote the cult favorite REIGN OF FIRE), and, according to two of Zeitchik's agency sources, will be shopped to "high-level" directors. While they're not exactly high-level (yet), I'll go ahead and put in a vote for INSIDE's Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury; if allowed to make a hard-R horror flick, they could definitely bring a level of relentlessness absent from Lambert's version. Ron Howard would also be good.

Zeitchik's article reminds me that there's still an adaptation of IT in development at Warner Bros. I have no ****ing clue how that would work as a two-hour feature.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/48329

Dudess

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

While not top draw stuff the TV miniseries was alright, it remained fairly close to the original story and apart from some woeful acting (I'm looking at you Molly Ringwald :mad:) it was a decent effort, plus the opening scene and music was absolutely brilliant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN8kUGETTFA

Its use of Don't Fear The Reaper only bettered by "I gotta have more cowbell!"
I enjoyed The Stand too.

King has at times been kinda strange about movie versions of his books - apparently he has expressed a preference for the TV movie approach. He didn't like The Shining at all :eek: and there is a remake more to his taste. Some of his major works have gotten the TV movie/mini-series treatment: Cujo, IT, Christine, Pet Semetary, Salem's Lot... when I assume they could have been big movie draws. I know there's Carrie, Misery and Dolores Claiborne too though, and Shawshank/The Green Mile.

Sad Professor

Dudess wrote: »

King has at times been kinda strange about movie versions of his books - apparently he has expressed a preference for the TV movie approach. He didn't like The Shining at all :eek: and there is a remake more to his taste.

Which was dreadful. King unfortunately doesn't understand movies. He judges them soley on how close they are to his books.

Sticky_Fingers

Dudess wrote: »

Its use of Don't Fear The Reaper only bettered by "I gotta have more cowbell!"
I enjoyed The Stand too.

King has at times been kinda strange about movie versions of his books - apparently he has expressed a preference for the TV movie approach. He didn't like The Shining at all :eek: and there is a remake more to his taste. Some of his major works have gotten the TV movie/mini-series treatment: Cujo, IT, Christine, Pet Semetary, Salem's Lot... when I assume they could have been big movie draws. I know there's Carrie, Misery and Dolores Claiborne too though, and Shawshank/The Green Mile.

Don't forget The Mist, an outstanding movie adaption from Frank Darabont that remains pretty close to the source material apart from that ending, Jesus it was bleak but in a good way:(

JP Liz V1

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/david-yates-to-direct-the-stand?ns_campaign=news&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=totalfilm&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+totalfilm%2Fimdbnews+%28Total+Film+IMDb+aggregate%29

David Yates and Steve Kloves having teamed up to record-breaking effect on the last three Harry Potter films, the pair are now set to tackle another weighty tome in the form of Stephen King’s The Stand.
Warner Brothers are keen to see the horror maestro’s apocalyptic epic turned into a multi-film franchise, and are currently in talks with Yates and Kloves to take over as director and screenwriter respectively.
Clocking in at a whopping 1,472 pages in paperback form, The Stand is one of King’s most ambitious novels. It tells the story of a global disaster involving the accidental release of a flu-like virus that leaves the human population utterly decimated. In the barren wreckage of what was once America, various survivors make their way painstakingly to the few remaining cities offering shelter.
It’s interesting to see Warner pressing ahead with this one, especially since they had been expected to pick up another King adaptation, The Dark Tower, after the project’s collapse at Universal.
That said, The Stand would offer a more manageable proposition (given that it’s one book, rather than seven) and would still fit multi-film hole left by the departing Potter.

Sad Professor

Not exactly the news I wanted to hear. They are both hacks. But very competent ones, so provided King is kept very far away from this, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be able to deliver the goods. A pair of competent hacks is probably exactly what a film adaptation like this needs.

“Multi-film” series? I’ll believe it when I see it. As happened with the planned The Dark Tower trilogy, I suspect there’s a strong chance the studio will scoff at this once they see the budget. On the other hand, Yates and Kloves have several hugely successful fantasy films to their name, where as Howard is the guy who made Willow and Goldsman wrote Batman & Robin. The Stand is also far more suitable for a film adaptation than The Dark Tower.

Otis Driftwood

The thing with The Stand is that I dont think the budget would be much of a problem.

There are no flashy set pieces or scenes that would need alot of effects work which is where alot of movie budgets get eaten up.

Tried to reread the Stand for the first time since I was 11 a few weeks back and gave up halfway through. King's uncut edition is something of a mess and really destroys a great novel. Gonna wait till I'm at home next and find my copy of the original published version.

norrie rugger

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Agree with you about the ending, it was pretty lame though he said himself that he was suffering from terrible writers block at the time and couldn't find a good way of ending the story. Personally I never really liked the whole supernatural element of the story, it always seemed a bit off to me, still a good read though.

King can very rarely writea good ending, apart from his Castle rock books.
The Stand, Dark Towers, Insomnia, The Mist and a few more not coming to mind.

Dr. Loon

norrie rugger wrote: »

King can very rarely writea good ending, apart from his Castle rock books.
The Stand, Dark Towers, Insomnia, The Mist and a few more not coming to mind.

I have to say, I agree with this, and I love King's writing. He truly can't seem to write a decent ending the majority of the time. Everything up to there is always brilliant though.

It'd be great to see a well made version of The Stand, which has to rank as one of my favourite books.

D-FENS

Sad Professor wrote: »

Which was dreadful. King unfortunately doesn't understand movies. He judges them soley on how close they are to his books.

Not all the time in fairness to him, on a Stand By Me documentary he says he likes the difference between that movie and his book, saying something alongs the lines of them being like apples & oranges - different but both taste great.

And he welcomed the change in ending Darabout used for the Mist.

Certainly don't understand why he does'nt like Kubrick's Shining though.

He may not understand movies but he does love them and the art behind them, i always thought his Dollar Baby rule was an interesting concept.

Some of the TV movie adaptations he's put his name to have been stinkers though.

nyarlothothep

Hopefully the film adaptation will be better than the book, I kind of enjoyed it at the time but looking back it had a ropey plot and some terrible characters, ex the histrionic Frannie, the cardboard Redman. Some of the dialogue was awful too, come eat chicken its so dark? wtf?!, and Randall Flagg was too overwrought in his villainy to take seriously. They'll need to change so much so that it doesn't end up as yet another crap King adaptation.

Otis Driftwood

Ben Affleck is being touted as a potential director and that its just going to be one movie rather than a trilogy.Not too sure about this tbh.Plus if it is compressed into one movie it could be lacking alot.Time will tell I guess.

Just a few days ago, we were talking about the latest Stephen King novels on the horizon. But what about the latest regarding seeing more cinematic interpretations of his work on the big screen? For the last few years, there’s been talk of an epic movie series based on THE DARK TOWER, not to mention theatrical redos of PET SEMETARY and IT, but the one that seems to have the most steam right now is THE STAND, which Warner Brothers is hoping to make one theatrical feature out of. As you may recall, Mick Garris directed a TV mini-series version back in 1994.
Well, according to Deadline, Ben Affleck is Warner’s choice as the director to helm one of King’s most epic tales. And ya know what? We’re OK with this.
Affleck’s come a long way especially as a director, and considering his take on GONE BABY GONE was adapted from the novel by Dennis Lehane, he definitely can handle the book to film translation. Not to mentioned the caliber of actors he’ll bring to the project as evident with his last flick THE TOWN.
While this project is still in its infancy stages as Affleck wraps up his current directing (and acting) gig on ARGO, the potential for a great new STAND movie definitely has us excited!

Source.

jill_valentine

Have to say, I wasn't impressed by the movie ending of The Mist - I really thought that was perhaps the one and only ending King got perfect.

I love the first half or so of The Stand, and yeah, wished it had gone so far off into supernatural ghosty land. I love a good apocalyptiplague, and Contagion just didn't do the trick.

Goldstein

jill_valentine wrote: »

Have to say, I wasn't impressed by the movie ending of The Mist - I really thought that was perhaps the one and only ending King got perfect.

I love the first half or so of The Stand, and yeah, wished it had gone so far off into supernatural ghosty land. I love a good apocalyptiplague, and Contagion just didn't do the trick.

Really? I thought they shirked a convention in the movie The Mist and went down a much ballsier road than the novella. Thought the movie's conclusion was a great ending.

Not a happily-ever-after ending or the uncertain-future vagueness but a great one nonetheless.

jill_valentine

Goldstein wrote: »

Really? I thought they shirked a convention in the movie The Mist and went down a much ballsier road than the novella. Thought the movie's conclusion was a great ending.

Not a happily-ever-after ending or the uncertain-future vagueness but a great one nonetheless.

It was clever in itself, but the main point I preferred in the book was

the fact that once he sees the tree down, he can only assume his wife is dead. It seemed to me much more horrifying that he was just going to have to live with that little bit of ambiguity. And probably not for very long.

Sad Professor

I have to say I didn't like the ending to The Mist at all. I loved everything leading up to it, but not the final scene.

It felt like Darabont was, in the most heavy handed way possible, drawing a contrast with the Shawshank ending. The message of the film is: don't give up hope or you'll end up like this guy.

Re: The Stand, while I'm not completely opposed to the idea of a trilogy, I'd rather they made a single film. Unfortunately I don't think Affleck is the guy to make it. A film like this really needs a strong visual director.

And for me, the best thing about The Stand is the biblical battle of good and evil with Flagg as the antichrist. The first third of the book covering the plague is just the set-up.

Goldstein

I think they were on the right track with a Harry Potter director but they went after the wrong ones - I'd would have been ecstatic to hear Alfonso Cuarón's name attached to this. Or even Danny Boyle, Peter Jackson, Neill Blomkamp or someone similar that you'd trust with a movie of this importance and magnitude. Flagg - what an absolutely epic character to be given control of. Simultaneously a daunting responsibility and a giddyness-inducing creative opportunity. Ben Affleck is not a name that springs to mind.

A two-parter seems like the sweetspot length wise. You'd be cutting way too much out with one movie no matter how you structured it.

I like Affleck as a director and think that while he has yet to show a distinct visual flair of his own his two efforts thus far have been amongst the best films released in their respective years. The Stand is exactly the kind of project he needs in order to establish his own style and while there are others I would put ahead of him when considering a director for The Stand there are far more I'd put behind him.

FlashD

jill_valentine wrote: »

Have to say, I wasn't impressed by the movie ending of The Mist - I really thought that was perhaps the one and only ending King got perfect.

I watched The Mist recently, loved that massive alien bit stomping through the landscape towards the end, thought it was really good let down by a garbage ending though , it really spoiled the whole movie and seemed out of character for the main hero.

I wasn't aware that the book ending was different, how did King end it?

jill_valentine

FlashD wrote: »

I watched The Mist recently, loved that massive alien bit stomping through the landscape towards the end, thought it was really good let down by a garbage ending though , it really spoiled the whole movie and seemed out of character for the main hero.

I wasn't aware that the book ending was different, how did King end it?

The guy drives home

only to discover he can't get to the house, because there are trees down over the drive. He reasons that, because he hadn't yet fixed the broken window from the storm and that's where his wife would have been when the mist descended, she's almost certainly dead. Then he drives off into the Mist, and that's it.

There's just something about the fact that he'll never know for sure what happened to her, and that we'll never know how far he gets, that worked for me. The movie ending, although clever and effective, seemed to me way too rushed. As the AV Club put it - "It's that the timing seems off. After they run out of gas, Drayton seems awful damn eager to whip out his gun. Do they wait until they're hungry, or thirsty, or it's dark and horrible creatures have found the car, or until someone has to pee and risk getting eaten by stepping out of the truck? Nope, it's "Whoops, outta gas," then kaboom, straight to the mass murder. Which is why the mist clearing 60 seconds later feels cheap to me, and why the ending made me roll my eyes more than weep copious tears."

One thing that did totally work was the awesome use of the Dead Can Dance song though.

Otis Driftwood

Its been a number of years since I read The Mist but didnt it end end with the survivors in a Hotel room with a radio getting some faint signal from somewhere?

Tipsy McSwagger

Affleck is a good choice and he has proven that he is a top director so as a fan of the book I have no problem with him.

FlashD

Both those endings sound better than the movie ending.

Yeah, I totally agree with you jill-Valentine about the rushed nature and all the rest, that's why I thought it was totally out of character for the hero who was very level headed throughout the whole story. Very disappointing!

JP Liz V1

Ben Affleck's replacement Scott Cooper has now exited too

will56

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/24/matthew-mcconaughey-the-stand-stephen-king-adaptation

Looks like it could be going ahead as a 4 movie series with Matthew McConaughy now rumoured to play Flagg.

I can actually picture McConaughy as Flagg, but I'm not so sure on people haiving enough interest in 4 feature length movies.

I would have thought The Stand is best suited to a one/two series HBO show with a decent budget.

humanji

Yeah, a 4 movie series is a hell of a gamble for something that isn't a tween novel or established universe. A good series would be perfect. Best part of that link is the comment about Morgan Freeman in drag as Mother Abagail.

will56

Hmm who could be a good Mother Abigail ?



A good series focusing on characted like the book did would be how I'd picture it working.

Bacchus

Getting MCC on board would give it a real shot in the arm. 4 movies is a weird number. A trilogy would be nice... three 150-ish minute long movies should be able to cover it (with 3 hours extended editions for the hardcore fans perhaps).

The ending I think would need to be changed to make it a more epic conclusion to a trilogy. Other than that though there are natural break points for a trilogy...

1 : Outbreak -> Arriving in Boulder & Las Vegas
2 : Boulder & Las Vegas stuff, the spies, Harold (and that girl) as main antagonists. Ends with the bomb and the group of 4 heading west.
3 : The journey to Las Vegas, looming war and final confrontation (would need to divert from the book I think)

Like the book, the final movie of a trilogy will need work as it won't live up to the previous 2 movies in its current form. The potential is there though for 3 very different movies forming a trilogy.

Thargor

Love the book, love Kings other stuff but the reviews will have to be spectacular to get me to the cinema 4 different times to see The Stand again, brave decision.

Sad Professor

I’m so sick and tired of trilogies. It should be a single 3-hour film. The original (and far superior) abridged version of the book isn’t that long and there’s still plenty of fat that could be cut.

Bacchus

Sad Professor wrote: »

I’m so sick and tired of trilogies. It should be a single 3-hour film. The original (and far superior) abridged version of the book isn’t that long and there’s still plenty of fat that could be cut.

I've only ever read the uncut version but the I don't see how the entire story can be cut down to a single 3 hour movie. Everything would have to be exaggerated (particularly with Flagg) to convey the scale of the situation in such a short space. So much would be skimmed past that develops the characters that it would be an incoherent mess. A big part of it too is the timeline, it takes place over a 4/5 month period. I think it would be hard to encompass that time in a single movie.

I could see a two parter perhaps doing the job but it would take a very skilled scriptwriter & director to get right. At 3 movies, it could start to feel a little padded out, mostly because the ending doesn't pack the same punch that the rest of the book does, so a 3rd movie would be a bit anti-climatic.

One way maybe to do it in a single movie would be to just follow Stu and Flagg's perspectives and ignore everyone else's story.... but then that too requires a change to the ending.

Adamantium

I like the fact that it will be 4 films planned from the start aka LOTR, I'm always weary and cynical when studios decide to 3rd installements into 2 parts at the 11th hour, after suddenly realising they have a goldmine to milk on their hands and don't want the good days to end.

4 films is a really striking number too. We could do with an epic that is relatively grown up too, it's been a while

Bacchus

Adamantium wrote: »

I like the fact that it will be 4 films planned from the start aka LOTR, I'm always weary and cynical when studios decide to 3rd installements into 2 parts at the 11th hour, after suddenly realising they have a goldmine to milk on their hands and don't want the good days to end.

4 films is a really striking number too. We could do with an epic that is relatively grown up too, it's been a while

I think the material would be too thin on the ground for 4 films. Oddly though the material could fill a TV series but that's because you can have much more filler in a TV show and explore all the characters in greater detail.

If you consider that the first movie would largely deal with the outbreak and the two groups forming and lets assume some grander finale for the 4th movie... what does 2 & 3 do? Two movies in a row dealing with Boulder and Harold's scheming would be a bit much. Even the spying stuff would get boring the 2nd time round, and I imagine the spy side of things will still be going into the final film.

You're right though, it'd be great to see a real "grown up" epic that isn't full of CGI and action sequences.

PirateShampoo

Screw The Stand, give us The Dark Tower already... Daniel Craig for Roland.

Bacchus

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Screw The Stand, give us The Dark Tower already... Daniel Craig for Roland.

Once I finish Misery, that series is next on my list. Is it long :pac:

PirateShampoo

Bacchus wrote: »

Once I finish Misery, that series is next on my list. Is it long :pac:

7.5 books, i finished them in a month and half. Ive 1 or 2 issues with the later books but i loved the series overall. The first book is just the right size to get you hooked, the part was ideal for a young Clint Eastwood.

humanji

Bacchus wrote: »

If you consider that the first movie would largely deal with the outbreak and the two groups forming and lets assume some grander finale for the 4th movie... what does 2 & 3 do? Two movies in a row dealing with Boulder and Harold's scheming would be a bit much. Even the spying stuff would get boring the 2nd time round, and I imagine the spy side of things will still be going into the final film.

I'd assume:

1st Film -

The outbreak and introduction to the main characters and what they lose, and hints and snippets of Flagg to build up the tension of the looming evil.

2nd Film -

The end of the outbreak and the struggle to survive. Characters drawn to either Boulder or Vegas, while showing more of Flagg's ability to manipulate people.

3rd Film -

Life in Boulder and the fear of the coming confrontation.

4th Film -

Big finale.

So it could be easily split into 4. It's just that there's going to be a lot of padding and the pace could be destroyed. And I do agree that the end should be changed. That's the biggest problem with Stephen King books, they start out brilliant then often end terribly.

I wonder if the plan is to create a King cinematic universe, similar to the Marvel cinematic universe, as The Stand and The Dark Tower are in the works and both in tie together, as do most of his other works?

Bacchus

humanji wrote: »

I'd assume:

1st Film -

The outbreak and introduction to the main characters and what they lose, and hints and snippets of Flagg to build up the tension of the looming evil.

2nd Film -

The end of the outbreak and the struggle to survive. Characters drawn to either Boulder or Vegas, while showing more of Flagg's ability to manipulate people.

3rd Film -

Life in Boulder and the fear of the coming confrontation.

4th Film -

Big finale.

So it could be easily split into 4. It's just that there's going to be a lot of padding and the pace could be destroyed. And I do agree that the end should be changed. That's the biggest problem with Stephen King books, they start out brilliant then often end terribly.

That layout seems fine but as you say yourself, "there's going to be a lot of padding and the pace could be destroyed".

Necronomicon

For any fans of The Stand, it is worth listening to director Josh Boone being interviewed by Kevin Smith.

It is very long and a lot of it is about The Fault in Our Stars and Boone's background - there is some Stephen King conversation at the beginning, but the conversation really gets going at around 1:20 (one hour and twenty, that is!)

He has me completely sold on the back of that interview; the guy oozes passion about the source material. It was originally going to be a single 3-hour movie, he even had a script penned - but Warner Bros. were concerned about the lack of set pieces. Boone had to really sell his vision for a more character-driven story and not one full of fabricated scenes for the sake of trailer-fodder. They reached a compromise whereby Boone could tell his story if he would do it across multiple films - Warner must have been eager to find the next multi-film franchise.

He emphasises that he wants to stay true to the book; he uses World War Z as an example of what he doesn't want to do to the source material, which was music to my ears. I do think that four films is excessive, but I am on board with it for now anyway.

Agent Coulson

Matthew McConaughey In (Evil) Talks To Be The Stand's Randall Flagg.

McCounaughey's been rumored for the role for a while now, but The Guardian said the casting is official — which they've since backed down on, only saying the actor is "tipped" to play the role. Still, this is way too perfect not to happen, people. One of Flagg's many names is The Walkin' Dude, which describes the laconic McConaughey to a T (I mean, he's a dude who walks too!). Anyone who's seen True Detective knows that the actor can channel the darkness required of the servant of evil, as well as the charisma needed to help start one of the post-apocalypse's two civilizations.

http://io9.com/matthew-mcconaughey-in-evil-talks-to-be-the-stands-ran-1663131064

humanji

He'd be awful in the role, and I don't mean terrible. I mean terrifying, and could possibly replace Tim Curry's Pennywise the Clown in my nightmares.

Thargor

humanji wrote: »

He'd be awful in the role, and I don't mean terrible. I mean terrifying, and could possibly replace Tim Curry's Pennywise the Clown in my nightmares.

Funnily enough the director of True Detective just signed up to do a remake of IT:

http://www.vulture.com/2014/12/fukunaga-to-shoot-stephen-kings-it-next-summer.html?mid=twitter_vulture