It (2017)

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Britbuffguy

SO those that read the book, how close was the 90's film to the source material. I read the differences on some site, but it didn't seem...minus the gang bang and the turtle....that they had changed much. Am I wrong?

I had a few King fan cousins that would always tell me growing up that the film was nothing like the book.

Just curious.

I saw the 90s film for the first time last year and (so far) that's my only viewing but it seemed pretty faithful. Most of the departures had to do with omitting material (which only stands to reason, it's a huge book) and relying on a more linear method of storytelling. The novel relies extensively (and very effectively) on flashbacks whereas the 1990 film breaks the childhood and adult storylines into more discreet chunks.

But that all said, I was pretty impressed with how well the miniseries captured the flavor of the novel (particularly given the content limits of network television).

And the book is fantastic, btw. I'm not going to take a position on whether you should read it before or after seeing the new film but you should definitely read it at some point.

[Ruemorgue10]

Originally Posted by Britbuffguy

SO those that read the book, how close was the 90's film to the source material. I read the differences on some site, but it didn't seem...minus the gang bang and the turtle....that they had changed much. Am I wrong?

I had a few King fan cousins that would always tell me growing up that the film was nothing like the book.

Just curious.

The miniseries gets the basic story right, but other than that, it's completely different; The only scene I can recall that's 100% faithful to the novel is Georgie's encounter with Pennywise in the storm drain.

Since the film was modestly produced for network television, they had to alter many things, including the violence and the various large creatures IT morphs into to attack the children.

Everything pertaining to IT's cosmic origins are omitted entirely. In the miniseries, it is never explained exactly what IT is or where IT came from; the novel makes if abundantly clear that

[Show spoiler] IT is a creature not of this earth

.

[Britbuffguy]

Originally Posted by Ruemorgue10

The miniseries gets the basic story right, but other than that, it's completely different; The only scene I can recall that's 100% faithful to the novel is Georgie's encounter with Pennywise in the storm drain.

Since the film was modestly produced for network television, they had to alter many things, including the violence and the various large creatures IT morphs into to attack the children.

Everything pertaining to IT's cosmic origins are omitted entirely. In the miniseries, it is never explained exactly what IT is or where IT came from; the novel makes if abundantly clear that

[Show spoiler] IT is a creature not of this earth

.

I see two differences in the trailer already.

We see the thing with Mike, as in the series, his only real interaction with Pennywise was the book with everyone else.

And that scene with Pennywise coming at a few of them, with his fingers growing. Apparently some have said there was a scene with a

[Show spoiler]werewolf

that this could be.

[RedIsNotBlue]

Just speaking in general to nobody in particular but it still amazes me how avid fans of a book get so offended over film versions making changes. Hate to break it to you but they are called adaptations for a reason. There are ALWAYS going to be changes because for starters there is a two hour time frame they have to condense things down to and plus they have to make things accessible to average joe movie goer. That is just the nature of the business and how it is. Granted the track record shows a lot of the changes with adaptations tend to be for the worse but It is VERY out there in its overall theme and concepts so things just HAVE to be different.

[Ruemorgue10]

Originally Posted by Britbuffguy

We see the thing with Mike, as in the series, his only real interaction with Pennywise was the book with everyone else.

Mike's encounter with Pennywise in the novel would not have worked in the miniseries unless stop motion animation was applied and even then, it would've looked silly.

The miniseries had its disadvantages due to its budget and the era it was made in so I can't fault it for not pulling off the necessary visual effects to showcase some of the more fantastic moments of the novel.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Britbuffguy

SO those that read the book, how close was the 90's film to the source material. I read the differences on some site, but it didn't seem...minus the gang bang and the turtle....that they had changed much. Am I wrong?

I had a few King fan cousins that would always tell me growing up that the film was nothing like the book.

Just curious.

I'll add to what everybody else has said. This single book is very, very long, about the same size as the entire Lord of the Rings, so it could pretty easily fill up about 8 to 10 hours of movie if someone chose to give it unlimited breathing room and budget. Also, while the 90's tv film hits a lot of the same main beats as the book, tons of detail and build-up is missing, and the book is just so much more moody, dark, gruesome, and trippy.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

I'm tempted to re-watch the mini-series (even though I last watched it a few months ago), but I'm still re-reading the novel and I'm worried it would disrupt the book's momentum, so to speak.

I just started re-reading the book a few days ago and thought of the same thing. Think I'll probably read the book, which will probably take a few months for me, then go in to the new movie fresh from the book, then maybe watch the tv movie later on to tide me over to the second part of the new film, whenever that might happen.

[JMDiaz718]

Tv version was ok. Tons of plot from the book were dropped. It was not as menacing. One of the creepiest segments, involving a kid and flying leeches, was dropped. Still it was pretty good for a tv movie.

What hurts it, is if you are a fan of the book.

[CrazyBlu-RayFan]

I haven't seen this article posted: STEPHEN KING’S ‘IT’: HOW CHILD SEXUAL CONTENT HAS CHANGED THE FILM FOR GOOD - Inquisitr

I'm gonna say it, the studio made the right choice fighting Fukunaga on this. It's unnecessary, repulsive, and is either pushing the line of legality to the limit or is illegal. And then he has the balls to complain that he's another artist that doesn't get his vision because the studio wanted to play it safe; when the studio, the kid's parents, and most audiences don't want to see children put through this kind of content, F*%k off, Fukunaga.

[Talleyrand]

I'm on board with Fukunaga. It obviously was never going to happen, but I'd say he's absolutely right when he says, “It didn’t fit into the algorithm of what they knew they could spend and make money back on based on not offending their standard genre audience.”

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

I'm on board with Fukunaga. It obviously was never going to happen, but I'd say he's absolutely right when he says, “It didn’t fit into the algorithm of what they knew they could spend and make money back on based on not offending their standard genre audience.”

Exactly. Also, again, Fukunaga seems to be being criticized again for wanting that scene in his version but no mention of Stephen King for writing and thinking of that scene in the first place. That's kind of odd. Is it because it's Stephen King?

[Agent Bond]

I always thought It was a demon that took the form of people's worst fears (clowns, spiders, etc.)

[Cremildo]

Certain things are not yet acceptable to be graphically enacted in mainstream, commercial movies - a children's orgy and juvenile sexual abuse are some of them.

It is a studio product made for mass consumption, not avant-garde arthouse fare that will play in obscure European film festivals and be analyzed by half a dozen intellectuals.

Sorry, but Fukunaga was delusional.

[CrazyBlu-RayFan]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Certain things are not yet acceptable to be graphically enacted in mainstream, commercial movies - a children's orgy and juvenile sexual abuse are some of them.

It is a studio product made for mass consumption, not fare that will play in obscure European film festivals and be analyzed by half a dozen intellectuals.

Sorry, but Fukunaga was delusional.

Plus, considering Fukunaga wanted to show this stuff and not imply it, even if it was an avant-garde arthouse film, the whole legality of what he wanted and what's allowed would be a nightmare.

[TheCoon]

"Silly boy....you still think you can see...me..."

*pennywise transforms into john cena*

YOU CANT SEE ME

*transforms back *

"Youll see only what your little mind can allow "

[Talleyrand]

REDACTEd

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

To be fair, you can get away with anything in a novel as it doesn't involve real people. I mean, you might get an obscenity charge in some places, but I don't think that kind of thing is binding by and large.


I'm not denying he was delusional; that doesn't make the overall situation right. The fact is, he wrote the movie, it's getting glowing reviews so obviously he did something right, so he should be left alone to make the movie as he wants.

Obviously that is not how the industry works, but there's a difference between what is and what ought to be.

Yeah that is true.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

I'm not denying he was delusional; that doesn't make the overall situation right. The fact is, he wrote the movie, it's getting glowing reviews so obviously he did something right, so he should be left alone to make the movie as he wants.

Obviously that is not how the industry works, but there's a difference between what is and what ought to be.

But he didn't want to be left alone. He wanted Warner to pony up tens of millions of dollars for the movie. It's not unreasonable for Warner or any other studio to say 'well, okay, but' when they're paying the bills.

And that's not only how it is, it's how it ought to be.

The people paying the bills ought to be the ones who decide whether they want to be risk seekers or risk averse. It's their money. We can sit on the sidelines and wish studios would take more chances and fund edgier material but at the end of the day it's not up to us because it's not our money.

[Gamma_Winstead]

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

Exactly. Also, again, Fukunaga seems to be being criticized again for wanting that scene in his version but no mention of Stephen King for writing and thinking of that scene in the first place. That's kind of odd. Is it because it's Stephen King?

It's been discussed and picked at since the day the book was released and people finished it.

[Talleyrand]

Originally Posted by octagon

But he didn't want to be left alone. He wanted Warner to pony up tens of millions of dollars for the movie. It's not unreasonable for Warner or any other studio to say 'well, okay, but' when they're paying the bills.

And that's not only how it is, it's how it ought to be.

The people paying the bills ought to be the ones who decide whether they want to be risk seekers or risk averse. It's their money. We can sit on the sidelines and wish studios would take more chances and fund edgier material but at the end of the day it's not up to us because it's not our money.

Well played.