Stephen King Fans discussion
Movies & TV shows
>
IT Chapter 1 (2017)
I saw the new movie this afternoon. I did not see any prior versions, but I did listen to the book before seeing it. I don't feel that it really followed the book super well, but I thought it was well done and I really enjoyed it. Pennywise is super creepy, but also kind of beautiful. I really hate scary movies, but couldn't resist this one. I really liked it a lot.
If you haven’t read the source material for the latest adaptation of one of Stephen King’s best-known and best-loved tales, “IT”, then you probably won’t be offended, annoyed or disappointed by it.You won’t care that the seven kids, who unite against a school bully, before ultimately taking on an alien monster in the guise of a killer clown, have no depth, no real personality, despite the best efforts of the young actors taking on the roles.
You won’t mind that Bill Denbrough’s stutter is not very cuh-cuh-cuh-hon-vincing, or even consistent, throughout the film.
If you never saw the 1990 mini-series, then you’ll probably sit in the cinema chugging down your full fat coke, munching your hot dogs, nachos or popcorn, waiting for the next scare or horrifying scene.
The problem is “IT” (2017) doesn’t deliver on many levels, including shock or scare value. It has a "15" certificate too. It’s mostly pedestrian hokum and, like the stuh-hutter, not convincing.
The problem when you re-make something is that it’s open to comparison, and with a thousand page novel and a previous adaptation to hold this new version up against, it had to be good…it had to be really good, and sadly, it was, at best, “watchable”.
The 1990 version may have been a bit cringe-worthy in places, a bit dated, and maybe lacking in special effects, but it was more true to its source material than this.
Bill Skarsgård was always going to have a tough task following Tim Curry’s Pennywise, and his attempt at making him lispingly seductive, rather than overtly horrific fell a little short for me.
Bill was pretending to be Pennywise, whereas Tim was Pennywise.
There’s also the problem of a time shift.
What worked well about the earlier IT was that it was set in the 1950’s, with all its naiveté, lack of technology and when rock and roll and horror movies were in their infancy.
The new 1980’s kids on the block fail as actors to convince that the kids they portray are real. They have the same names, but not the same depth, warmth or charm as that rather “hokey” 1990 version, and that’s a pity.
IT comes out of hibernation every twenty-seven years, feasts and preys on the innocent and unsuspecting, and, it appears, so do film adaptations of the novel.
Stephen King said he liked it and thought it was scary, but he wrote it, has a vested interest in peddling it, so he’s hardly likely to jump up and down, throw a hissy fit and scream “What have you done to my work…?”, is he?
He’s giggling like Pennywise as cinema turn-styles continue to rotate and ker-ching in the cash for him.
Lastly, think on this.
The 1990 adaptation was 180 minutes long and told the whole, stripped down to the bones and omitting some parts of the novel, story reasonably well, with a decent cast and credible acting.
The 2017 adaptation is 135 minutes long, tells only half the tale and does that glibly, and quite badly, omitting most, if not all of the source material. Yes, it’s set in Derry, Maine. Yes, kids are going missing and yes, it’s all down to Pennywise and the indifference of their adult parents but other than that, this is a different beast altogether…and we’ve the sequel in the pipeline to tell the rest of the tale.
Well, I don’t care what happens to these Losers, and won’t bother to see the second chapter, because, as in Ultravox’s Vienna, they mean nothing to me.
Oh, and just a thought before I go. By the time this movie was set, the original Losers - the credible ones - had tracked the clown to his lair and put out his deadlights for good, so there’s a lovely gaping plot hole for someone to fill.
No, I don’t want a balloon, and no, it didn’t float…IT sank, and IT stank.
I worry about you Stephen…I worry about you a lot.
Just got back from seeing it and have to say I really enjoyed it. The kids were great and Skarsgard provided a different but effective take on Pennywise. Sure it changed some things around but that's why they call them adaptations. You can't just take the book and transplant it to the big screen, some things just won't work the way the do in a book. Anyway, for me it has gone some way towards making up for the massive Dark Tower disappointment.
I guess I should have expected such a well-loved story would have such polarized reviews, but...I really enjoyed it.I found it scary. So scary, in fact, at one point I jumped and kicked the (thankfully empty) seat in front of me and broke my big toe.
I think separating the Losers Club's childhood and adulthood is an interesting move. I found it refreshing that they took a different approach than just copying the style of the mini-series.
I suppose in the interest of fairness I will say I felt the CGI was too much in some places, so much that it took away from the scare factor. That and the humor of the children doesn't translate well at all. I live in Korea and the translated subtitles for Richie and Eddie we're just confusing at best. The only laugh from the audience was the rock fight.
When I see an adaptation I expect it to follow the book as closely as possible. I admit I haven't seen the movie yet I hope I'm not disappointed.
I saw It (2017) last night and really enjoyed it. Yes, they took liberties with the book, but they also kept many of the best parts from the page. I see others felt the kids weren't convincing, but I thought they were overall, pretty good. Bev and Ben were my favorites, but all (with the exception of Mike) were pretty good.Skargard's Pennywise was terrific for me. The drool... gave me chills and creeped me out even when he did nothing overtly ominous except speak and drool!
I applaud the film makers decision to keep the language. I think 13 -17 year olds really speak that way sometimes and to clean it up would have done a disservice to the material. I also like that they kept the violence from the "real" people, AKA Bower's gang, very, very violent. One of King's strengths is showing us that not all monsters are supernatural. Some live next door.
Ok, I saw the Movie It, and I know I am going to upset a lot of you but I loved it. Yes there are some changes and parts cut from the movie that are in the book. If they didn't cut things out then the movie would have lasted nearly as many hours as there are pages in the book. I thought it was a good touch moving it to 1989, It's an adaptation not a historical representation of the book. If Mr. King didn't like the way they portrayed the characters in his book he would have said something before it went into production. I'm sure like most authors who's books are being made into movies he has final approval of the screen play.
How do you know Henry Bowers is dead, they didn't show him dying they just showed him falling down the well.
Again this is a personal opinion and I am sure there are a few out there that think it sucks but I will say again I liked the film.
Yes we see him fall we see him hit some boards but we don't actually see the dead body. Remember in the book he is in a catatonic state until just before the return 27 years later. Because the story is moved up they changed a few things, therefore they way Bowers ends up in a catatonic state may be because of the fall verses looking into Pennywise's eyes and seeing the dead lights.
I guess so, we will just have to wait to see if they decide to finish It.
I did enjoy the movie but I can see why people don't. I thought the kids were amazing. I also thought that Pennywise was as menacing and dangerous as he was in the book. I think the essence of the book was there even though the content of the movie strayed a bit from it. I do understand that people aren't going to like it because elements of the book were left out but overall I thought it was really, really good. I am really looking forward to Chapter 2.
mrbooks wrote: "Ok, I saw the Movie It, and I know I am going to upset a lot of you but I loved it. Yes there are some changes and parts cut from the movie that are in the book. If they didn't cut things out then ..."Again, we agree! I don't think Henry IS dead.
Matthewcross87 wrote: "seriously was that bendy face woman portrait that the bendy face woman come out of to chase the kids in the book , im sure i would have remembered that"I didn't remember the bendy face lady, either.
Saw the movie tonight. I appreciated the parts of almost direct dialogue from the book that the mini series lacked. I felt the characters were very rushed in meeting each other, talking about what they've seen and coming together. the rock fight was way part of apocalyptic. I feel like the blunt and explicit language was just a bit too overdone. Overall, I'd say I still like the mini series better, it stuck more to the flow of the books. there was good and bad parts but the original still carries a lot more of the heart of the book
Mod
The movie made a lot of money so I'm pretty sure it will get the second chapter.
Mod
Everyone in the theater I saw the movie in seemed to enjoy IT and clapped when the movie was over. I wish Mike had a bigger role but the movie just wasn't long enough and in the book he is introduced later on. In part two he'll have a much larger role I'm sure. I was super impressed with this movie and can't wait for Chapter 2.
Angie wrote: "This movie was great! The story really flowed (unlike another movie... I'm looking at you Dark Tower!). I thought the kids did amazing acting. I don't think [spoilers removed] I personally thought ..."Agree with pretty much all of this. Keep finding myself remembering Richie wrestling with the horn player in a marching band and chuckling. Was just a small background thing, but very funny.
I saw IT on Friday night. I've read the book and watched the miniseries twice and I was really happy with the movie. I can't wait for part two!
Saw this one today, and overall, I enjoyed the movie immensely. I tried to view it as it's own separate thing apart from the book and mini-series, and on that basis, it was absolutely fantastic. I feel like most of the characters were translated really well, so can't complain too much there. And Pennywise was just incredible. For the most part I feel like it was a spot-on interpretation and really gave a sense of otherworldliness in its actions and movements.Unfortunately, I can't say it was anywhere near perfect. Most of the characters felt translated really well, unfortunately, that just isn't the case for Mike and Bill. (view spoiler)
As for the changes made, for a lot of it I didn't mind. I get the idea of wanting to make it a bit different to surprise those who think they know what's coming. But a bit of that just kind of fell flat and threw me out of it completely. (view spoiler)
As for Henry Bowers, (view spoiler)
I have watched the movie twice since it came out and I absolutely loved it. I thought the acting was great, direction and soundtrack spot on and story, whilst a little different from the novel, very tense and exciting.Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise was absolutely sensational and captured the essence of IT from the novel perfectly. He was edgy dark psychotic, unhinged and very funny.
I am not going to mention Tim Curry and the mini series as to be frank it is poles apart from the 2017 film.
What really impressed me was the clear camaraderie with the Losers Club and the beautiful portrayal of the love triangle between Ben, Bev and Bill. I really cared about our favourite gang and the film captured this superbly.
Roll on Part 2!
Plus the great man Stephen King love the 2017 film so that is good enough for me!
I love the new movie. I had recently viewed the miniseries, and I have been listening to the audiobook for my billionth reread. I found Pennywise awesomely creepy. Its naked look of hunger when talking to Georgie was incredible, and its slithering in the cellar scene gave me the shivers. The kids were fantastic and their acting made the movie for me. They all had great moments, even Mike has the moment of confrontation with Henry. I think this movie was made for readers of the book in that you can fill in a lot of detail and I think derive character motivation from the source material. While many things were left out, I loved the focus on the House on Neibolt street. I think that is one of King's most awesome inventions (along with The Mansion in the Wastelands) and I was glad to see it made prominent (I believe they didn't even touch on this in the miniseries).
I find this an acceptable adaption and a welcome addition to the It pantheon that will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the mini-series and hopefully with the book after part 2 is out. And regardless of that, this is a kick ass horror movie. The beauty of the film and the outstanding acting are a huge payoff and hopefully bodes well for the future of the horror movie genre. I do think the first half will be easier than the second, but I can't wait for chapter 2 and I badly want to see this in the theater again.
I really enjoyed this version! Like others, I wasn't super thrilled that (view spoiler).And I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but my biggest quibble was (view spoiler).
The scares were good, the cinematography was quite nice, and Eddie and Richie were absolutely fantastic. The actor who played Eddie was wonderful and he was one of the highlights of the film. I've only seen it once so far, but I'm sure I'll go back and see it again.
Esse wrote: "I really enjoyed this version! Like others, I wasn't super thrilled that [spoilers removed].And I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but my biggest quibble was [spoilers removed].
The scares ..."
While I do agree Stan got pushed into the background for a bit, I did feel like they did a pretty decent job at showing off what they needed to for his characterization. (view spoiler)
I touched on it super briefly earlier Esse, but I agree 100% about Bev. It wasn't my major quibble (That position is filled by how they botched Mike), but it was definitely the second most irksome thing to me.
I also hate how they threw a view things in just to have it, even when it didn't make any sense to really put it in there. (view spoiler)
Tim wrote: "Saw this one today, and overall, I enjoyed the movie immensely. I tried to view it as it's own separate thing apart from the book and mini-series, and on that basis, it was absolutely fantastic. I ..."That is a good point on Henry,(view spoiler)
mrbooks wrote: "Tim wrote: "Saw this one today, and overall, I enjoyed the movie immensely. I tried to view it as it's own separate thing apart from the book and mini-series, and on that basis, it was absolutely f..."(view spoiler)
I cannot believe anyone is putting the 2017 film alongside the mini series?I watched the mini series for the third time a month ago after watching it previously twice in the early 1990s. Back then I wasn't satisfied at all but now it looks incredibly clunky, dated and about as scary as an episode of Scooby Doo. The acting is terrible (Young Bev and John Boy from the Waltons as Bill in particular are shockingly bad) and the director completely misses the whole essence of the novel. The soundtrack is miserable and makes it feel like an episode of a 70's Teen made for TV drama.
I have always thought Tim Curry's performance as Pennywise was far too slapstick as well. He may as well drive round in a little car honking his horn and squirting water from his lapel flower. I know it was a PG and the effects have to be judged as in 1990 but they are truly awful.
The mini series also misses very crucial characters such as Patrick Hockstetter. That would be my only criticism of the new film in that he should have been in it a lot longer as he was beautifully crazy.
I loved the new film and have seen it twice since last Friday. Bill Skarsgard captures Pennywise from the novel exceptionally well. He is sinister, dark, psychotic, unhinged and very unsettling. An excellent performance and very well directed.
The seven child actors blow the kids from the mini series as well. The camaraderie of the Losers Club from the book is replicated beautifully in the movie. The semi love triangle between Bev, Bill and Ben is also beautifully portrayed.
There are differences from the novel but the update of the particular monsters that scare Richie, Ben and Stan I felt gave it a more modern feel and were spot on with the 1980s period. In the mini series they were very lame and made it feel like a 50's B movie.
I hope the new film will consign the mini series to the darkest vaults and we never see it again. I loved 2017 part 1 and I cannot wait for Part 2. I am going to read the book for the fifth time shortly to compare and contrast again.
Steve wrote: "I cannot believe anyone is putting the 2017 film alongside the mini series?I watched the mini series for the third time a month ago after watching it previously twice in the early 1990s. Back the..."
Agree with most of this, although I do think the mini series has its merits and I'm not averse to dusting it off to watch now and then. However, it's of its time and hasn't aged well for me. The new film is streets ahead of it and is a much more potent take on the book. Well so far, anyway. We'll see what they do with part two. Just hope they don't rush it out.
I've heard mixed views on the film. You are right the mini series missed some crucial parts of the book but for that time period I thought it was pretty close. At the time Tim Curry scared the bejesus out of me.
I don't think the 2017 movie misses any of the crucial plot points at all. Did they leave things out? Sure. This is a e so has finite time to get the point across, but the real "story" is all there in my opinion. I've never felt the monster was the crux of the story. I've always felt it was the camaraderie and love of the Losers Club and how that makes them strong enough to defeat the monster and the movie shows us that very well.
I don't think individual scenes from the book are as important as the overall "feel", which I think is captured brilliantly. Especially the baby love triangle.
Kandice you are spot on. IT is about the Losers Club and the different social issues they experience and how they come together as a group to battle a universal evil.Stephen King also highlights in IT that humans can be monsters and the film captures that amazingly well.
The 2017 film is only 50% done and is FAR more faithful to the novel than the horribly clunky and dated mini series. If you don't take Candice and my word for that, listen to the great man. He was always disappointed by the mini series BUT is very happy with the 2017 film.
The mini series hasn't aged well and I was never a big fan in 1990. I always thought it was barely adequate. Tim Curry as Pennywise was slightly better than the rest of the cast (Seth Rogan apart) but for me was always way too slapstick and corny to be like Pennywise in the book. The mini series has massive continuity issues. It is poorly acted across adults and children. The director completely misses the point of the book as it has a 50's B movie feel to it with no representation of the pure evil of IT. Plus we have seen the whole story presented by the mini series and it misses way too much stuff out. Young Bev is very poor and doesn't shine like the 2017 version as a beacon of womanhood. The current young actress is very good and fits Beverley Marsh in the novel like a glove.
There are differences in the 2017 film but basically they are minor and used to give it a more modern feel. I love the fact they have updated the fears of some of the Losers to feel more modern and relevant.
But the biggest difference is pennywise. As I have said Curry's pennywise may as well drive round in a clown car honking his horn. He may have been scary if you watched the MS when you were four or five. BUT at 21 in 1990 I thought he was hugely disappointing and when I watched it again last month I just laughed at the banality of Curry's performance.
On the other hand Bill Skarsgard nails the brief. His Pennywise matches my vision from the novel. He is nasty, sinister, dark, unsettling and psychotic. The performance in the storm drain alone smashes Curry's panto clown to pieces. The way his eyes change colour and the switch in a sentence from humorous to sinister is amazing. His drool and demeanour drip through the soul and make you very uncomfortable. Loved the Pop Pop Pop as well.
Judge the 2017 film and its follow up next year against the novel as a whole and there will still be flashbacks. I would like to see more of Patrick who isn't even in the lame mini series and Henry should reappear. The new version has been directed with a modern feel but still remains faithful to the text. The mini series I am sorry is very average and I for one will never watch again now I have a vastly superior modern version.
Matthewcross87 wrote: "That's strange Steve we must have read a different book because this movie barely had any thing to do with the book i read but hey ho"I actually agree with Steve, but the beauty of books is that everyone can take something different from each book and no one is wrong.
Going to see IT after work for the second time. I'm just as excited as I was for my first viewing. I understand both viewpoints in regards to how the movie follows the book. I'm a huge fan of this movie for the following reasons.• They're making a movie, not a 5 season show. They will have to leave things out and simplify others. I think they did a great job of leaving out the difficult parts to film and focusing on cinematic thrills that capture the essence of Pennywise and the Loser's club.
• The movie is not perfect, but they nail so much that I can't help but respect this version.
• The film makes obvious nods to readers, and I found myself thinking about non-filmed parts of the book and using that to fill in some blanks. This works awesome for me and helps explain some short or seemingly truncated parts of the movie. Rather than a negative, I actually found this quite pleasing.
• This movie is rated R, but they left out a ton of horrid violence and didn't rely on that for shock value. It would have been easy to make a gore-fest of human suffering and torture porn, but they kept it creepy, creative, psychological, and gave the audience room to breathe. I can't commend the film makers enough for that.
• IT actually does King justice and brings some of the best qualities of his writing to the forefront.
While there are some things I lament did not make it to film (like Mike's solitary trip to the old ironworks), I don't mind keeping those scenes unpolluted and consisting of my own interpretation.
Regardless, I think we can all agree that IT is much better than The Dark Tower movie, and we can all breathe a sigh of relief for that.
I'm hoping to see the movie on the weekend. I have to admit I'm looking forward to it.
Anyone else have issues with how Beverly was portrayed in the movie? I didn't get the sense reading IT that Beverly was that confident in her sexuality until the very end - she was growing into it to be sure but she did not know that she was pretty or appealing for the majority of the book. Having these rumors and her undeserved reputation as a slut set up at the very start the movie made me very unhappy.
I agree with Steve for the most part when it comes to the movie holding the main themes fairly well. While I have issues with the film, one of those issues isn't the over all theme or tone at all. The only thing it really removed theme wise I outright recognize is the mysticism elements, and for me, that was a smart move. It just wouldn't have worked in the context of this film.She didn't in the book Alex, but at the same time I don't really feel she was 'confident' in the movie either. It seemed to me like she was faking it and trying to be strong in spite of those undeserved rumors, but behind closed doors and when alone she appeared very much insecure and unsure of herself.
The pervy guy (if the one I'm thinking of) was the pharmacist and was in the book to a greater degree than he was in the movie. His most influential moment was just handed to someone else.
Also Matthew, I would love to know what exactly you feel is wrong with the ending that you feel it missed the mark so strongly. I agree there are flaws and agree there are some problems which I greatly dislike that they had changed from the book, but overall I think it did a fantastic job tone and overall arc wise. I'd just like to know your interpretation of it all.
Oh Matthew you couldn't be further from the truth. Where was Patrick Hockstetter in the mini series? A crucial character completely missed. Where is the pure evil of IT in the mini series? Its just a bloody clown honking a horn. The child actors apart from Brandis and Rogan in the mini series were appalling! All 7 kids in the new one are terrific. The setting is more modern in the same way Stephen King updated The Stand. The reason being to make it more relevant and Part 2 would be in the present day. Something that Stephen King approved of. You don't know Henry is dead? In the book and ms he is found wandering the sewers clearly saved by IT to do hid bidding.
The movie isn't perfect but already on IMDB has way higher marks out of ten. Stephen King much preferred it as well which is good enough for me.
Too many people are fixated by the ms as a perfect reflection of the book but I have always been hugely disappointed in it and Tim Curry. Watch both parts of the MODERN adaptation which SK is a consultant on and then you can make a fair comparison. I feel too many people are making assumptions without having the whole piece to compare with a PG made for TV mini series which was wholly inadequate.
As I have said before I haven't seen the movie yet but the mini series for its time was pretty good. Of there is some flaws with the mini series as I expect with the movie. All said and done I have heard rave reviews for the movie and plan to see it on the weekend for myself. I'm very easy to please do if the movie ties in with the book without taking away from it then I'll be happy.
I still believe Bowers is alive in the 2017 version. I've seen it twice now. We are not shown his body and we KNOW It uses him in the book, so it seems only logical he will here too.Changing the time frame was a conscious decision, not an oversight. A good one, I because like Steve said, now the second chapter can take place in the present.
I like the mini-series for what it was, but you can only do so much on TV.
The bottom line for me is that Stephen King himself likes the 2017 version.
I agree, Kandice. I also think it's likely that Bowers will appear in the sequel. At the time of Bower's fall, IT is alive and well, the fall is into ITs home turf, and IT has supernatural powers beyond human understanding. I think we can chalk Bowers survival up to all that without much worry.I can understand some folks getting upset with how the movie changes things and doesn't reflect the book events accurately. I commiserate with these folks, as I do with those that aren't fans of the miniseries. For me, I enjoyed every second of this movie and didn't worry about how it matched the book. In King's multiverse there is room for this version of IT to exist on another level of the Tower. I feel the movie captured the spirit and much of the intent of the novel, and that is enough for me. The characters act like themselves, which to me gives them a lot of leeway in other events.
Anyhow, cheers to all, and if the movie didn't do it for you, I recommend giving the audiobook a listen as salve for the wound. I'm listening now, and I can't believe the incredible skills of the narrator, Steven Weber.
So far I have seen it twice and I LOVED it. I will definitely go for a 3rd time. Actually there were quite a few nods to the book, such as the Lego turtle, the turtle in the water and Georgie's turtle/circus wallpaper, and the "I love Derry" balloon that Don Hagarty saw when his boyfriend was killed, and the Deadlights in Pennywise's throat. I thought Pennywise was super creepy, the opening scene and cellar scene were some of the creepiest scenes I have ever seen! I think a lot of people are stuck on nostalgia though. The mini series scared the crap out of me, but as some have said, Curry's Pennywise was a clown with a monster inside while Skarsgard's Pennywise is more of a monster with a clownish veneer, which is how I think Pennywise should be more like.
Another thing which I thought was great was how they portrayed Stan's distancing and Beverly friendzoning Ben and for Bill as it were.
People keep blathering on about how Stephen King likes it, so it must be good. He has a vested interest in promoting the damned thing, so he's hardly likely to say it was pants and slate it as rubbish. Besides which, from what I've read, Mister King had little or no input into its making and Andres Muchietti begged King's forgiveness for what he'd done.
The TV mini-series was made twenty-seven years ago, and if, after all that time, the best they can do is this lame, limp rag of a movie, then Lord, help us all.
"Stephen King liked it..." the masses bleat in repetition.
So, what?
Stephen King might like eating Macaroni and mice, but I'm not going to rush out any time soon, try it, and say it's delicious.
It was bum-numbing, boring and, in my opinion, a waste of time and money...Sorry, folks. Keep Chapter Two. Beep Beep, Ritchie.
Matthewcross87 wrote: "alas mr king is only one guy so thats only one opinion and mine and other people who think the same won't change it as i said earlier each to there own"Yes Mr. King is only one guy, but the guy who wrote the book LOL. If anyone had a problem with the way things were changed it would be the author. He felt they were being true to his works even if they moved it forward in time.
mrbooks wrote: "Matthewcross87 wrote: "alas mr king is only one guy so thats only one opinion and mine and other people who think the same won't change it as i said earlier each to there own"Yes Mr. King is only..."
He also raved about how great The Dark Tower and Under the Dome were, when they clearly weren't. As great as he is, I think it's wise to take his opinions with a pinch of salt. Having said that, I thought the It movie was great. So what if they changed some things around, it captured the spirit and feel of the book an awful lot more than the mini series, although that did have its charm.
Greg there are a few of us who agree with you I think we are in the minority LOL, but It is all subjective anyway. I like taking part in the discussion as it is lively and interesting to here others opinions who knows they might even sway my opinion, but I doubt that LOL.
mrbooks wrote: "Greg there are a few of us who agree with you I think we are in the minority LOL, but It is all subjective anyway. I like taking part in the discussion as it is lively and interesting to here other..."I'm surprised it's divided opinion as much as it has. For me, I was waiting to see if they would get the first 10 minutes right. Pennywise in the storm drain has become such an iconic scene that I think to an extent the rest of the movie hinged on them getting that scene right. They nailed it, and then some.
Yes they nailed it but they should have left Georgie behind. It worked but not as well I think.
Stephen King Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
It (other topics)It (other topics)
It (other topics)
It (other topics)
I can see that Matthew. There was quite a bit that was changed from the book and some of it was important to me. But if I had to compare the mini-series vs. the movie (which I don't want to do because TV and movies are different and technology has come a long way) then I would choose the movie. I think that King writes such a complex story that people can embrace so many different themes and connections it really is hard to please every fan when his work is adapted. King himself can't even satisfy everyone with his endings, lol.