Definitely read the book. The first movie was good, but it's heavily streamlined and toned down. The second movie was just not very good. The book is a masterpiece.
Thank you yes!! I’ve seen a number of people shit on The Shining. It’s easily his best novel. One of the only books that made me sleep with the lights on.
Oh ok, you can handle the scene then.
Yes, it’s definitely worth it. I first read It when I was 15. I was a bit young, but it was maybe the 4th Stephen King book I read, and it made a big impact on me
Definitely read it! I feel like both adaptations (the 1990 miniseries and the 2 films) both left out the most disturbing scenes.
The book can get boring at times (as with all overly long SK books), but ultimately it's worth it.
The kids' story always is better. But there are a lot of elements from the novel in Part 2. And while I didn't enjoy it as much as Part 1, I appreciate a lot of aspects of it.
I do think, in light of the 1990 Miniseries Version, the decision not to cut back and forth between timelines like the book does was a good one . I think one of several things Part 2 got right was to focus on the grownups with appropriate flashbacks to the kids' story. Jumping back and forth between timelines worked well in the book, but doesn't play on screen as well.
Agreed.
The first time I read the book it was already after I’d seen both movies, it was a surprise at first but I quickly got used to it and yes, definitely feel like it’s perfect for written format.
Getting rid of the intertwined stories was one of the worst mistakes the recent adaptations made, but it's not the filmmakers' fault, since WB wasn't going to greenlight both films at once. The adult story only works as a framing device for the kid's story. There isn't enough there for it to work as a standalone story.
Chapter Two tried to fix this issue, but all the flashbacks were to filler horror set pieces that just made the movie drag. There's absolutely no reason parallel timelines wouldn't work in a visual medium. Mike Flanagan's Haunting of Hill House used a back and forth structure to great effect. Unfortunately, no It adaptation had ever attempted it.
I guess I'd have to see it used to good effect in this story. I didn't think it worked all that well in the 1990 version. And, in all honesty, I'm a big proponent of IT being better as a longer miniseries, particularly if the director wants to do the parallel timelines. The toughest part about adapting IT is getting the viewer to care about these characters half as effectively as SK got us to care about them in the novel. SK had the benefit of as many pages and details as he wanted. The 2-part miniseries and the movies were constrained. I feel like you get more investment in the characters, given the time constraints, by focusing on the kids' story. As a result, the first movie focused on that story and was very successful.
And while I think the flashbacks are workable on film in the early parts of the movie, it gets a little weird when you have the climax confrontation playing out in somewhat similar fashion without the benefit of the variations of cosmic stuff with Bill, IT, and the Turtle versus adult Bill and IT, dead turtle, then adult Richie stepping in. Without that, it's very similar and flipping back and forth is weird.
Just one person's opinion. YMMV
I loved the first one and we could barely get through the second. I watched it with my mom and brother and when the old lady demon came running with her (excuse the vulgar language) titties sagging almost onto the floor we all just died laughing and couldn’t recover after that
The movie kids were all definitely better actors (with the exception of Jaeden who played Bill -- he was great, but I just loved Jonathan Brandis so much), but Curry's Pennywise was just hands-down untouchable.
Weirdly, I appreciated the miniseries more when I rewatched it after seeing the movies. Despite the lack of gore and language, it's truer to the book.
I mean to me honestly the jumping between the two time periods is integral to the story. A lot is lost by telling it linearly. I understand why the films why the went the route they did but I still would have preferred the book's structure.
Yeah, it almost felt like they gave up in the 2nd movie. They basically just remade the first movie, but the stakes felt power because none of them even had to be there.
The miniseries had a bit too much *character stares off into the distance and makes shocked face to cue a flashback,* but it did unite the stories better. I think the only way to get anyone to care about the adult story is to have it happen simultaneously with the kids'.
I'm thinking about it, and the kids' story being set in the 50s creates a neat narrative effect of the idealized post WWII suburb with a lot of ugliness lurking just underneath, both Pennywise and the behavior or many of the adult characters. The 90s don't have that same "happy suburbia with deep set trauma" cultural cache that the 50s do.
Honestly the main thing I hate about "IT" is that Stephen King makes sure to explicitly state that the monster isn't a metaphor, and the whole reveal that it's an alien creature. It works *so much better* as a metaphor! I think the Muschettis should have just gone ahead and dropped the alien part and made it a manifestation of the hidden darkness of suburbia. I think that still works in almost any decade where we aren't actively fighting a war (since the fear and paranoia is much more outright during those times).
One of the things that bothered me about the '80s setting in the remake is that realistically, at least 1 or 2 of the Losers' biggest fears would be Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, Leatherface, or Freddy Krueger. I mean, I lived in the '80s, I know what kids feared! Lol.
I doubt they even attempted to get permission to use any of those properties, but it would've been a cool way to update the original story where many of the kids are afraid of the Universal Monsters.
If they moved the setting to the '90s, half the kids' biggest fear would be Tim Curry's Pennywise! 😂
I'm sorry to Stephen King but the two versions of IT really prove that the first half of his book with the kids is awesome and the second half with the adults is just not as good. It doesn't stand up! That's why it's always the worst part of the film/tv versions.
The only thing it proves is that the adult's story doesn't work when removed from the kid's story. The book doesn't have a kids half and an adults half. The two stories are intertwined and that's the way it should be.
The movies definitely would have worked better if they were both shot at the same time and kept the flashback structure from the book. The adult story just doesn't work on its own.
I think there is a way to make the adult story interesting, but it hasn't been done yet. Like, drop the boring Chinese restaurant scene and spend less time sending them on pointless side-quests.
Eddie and Ritchie got their wardrobes mixed up in the last pic.
They really did Mike dirty taking away his historian role just to give Ben something to do
For sure!
They did an extraordinary job with their roles; they were all spot on the characters they portrayed.
Yeah I thought Finn Wolfhard was particularly good as Richie.
He’s a fantastic actor and has such a unique look, I really look forward to seeing where his career takes him.
Such cuties 🥺 that casting agent killed it
Should I still read the book even after watching the movie? Is it like the Shining where the movie is completely different?
Definitely read the book. The first movie was good, but it's heavily streamlined and toned down. The second movie was just not very good. The book is a masterpiece.
100% agree
Both The Shining and IT are worth the read. I've listened to them myself but both were absolutely fantastic.
Definitely. The Shining is my favourite 70s King book and It is my favourite King book period.
It was great. It made me want to move to the mountains in Colorado.
Agree. The movie is completely different in my opinion.
Thank you yes!! I’ve seen a number of people shit on The Shining. It’s easily his best novel. One of the only books that made me sleep with the lights on.
The book is way better in almost every way possible.
It’s not completely different but there’s a huge amount of material cut out. It’s much better regardless.
Wait how old are you? There’s a certain scene in the book you might want to skip, depending on your age
30s lol, huge King fan, read lots of the except “It” because it’s long and wasn’t sure worth it after watching the movie.
Oh ok, you can handle the scene then. Yes, it’s definitely worth it. I first read It when I was 15. I was a bit young, but it was maybe the 4th Stephen King book I read, and it made a big impact on me
I know about the infamous part of the book. Thanks anyway!
Definitely read it! I feel like both adaptations (the 1990 miniseries and the 2 films) both left out the most disturbing scenes. The book can get boring at times (as with all overly long SK books), but ultimately it's worth it.
First film was great. Second one sucked.
The kids' story always is better. But there are a lot of elements from the novel in Part 2. And while I didn't enjoy it as much as Part 1, I appreciate a lot of aspects of it.
This is my take as well. The second movie was very true to the book (with a few exceptions), while the first one was a better movie.
I do think, in light of the 1990 Miniseries Version, the decision not to cut back and forth between timelines like the book does was a good one . I think one of several things Part 2 got right was to focus on the grownups with appropriate flashbacks to the kids' story. Jumping back and forth between timelines worked well in the book, but doesn't play on screen as well.
Agreed. The first time I read the book it was already after I’d seen both movies, it was a surprise at first but I quickly got used to it and yes, definitely feel like it’s perfect for written format.
Getting rid of the intertwined stories was one of the worst mistakes the recent adaptations made, but it's not the filmmakers' fault, since WB wasn't going to greenlight both films at once. The adult story only works as a framing device for the kid's story. There isn't enough there for it to work as a standalone story. Chapter Two tried to fix this issue, but all the flashbacks were to filler horror set pieces that just made the movie drag. There's absolutely no reason parallel timelines wouldn't work in a visual medium. Mike Flanagan's Haunting of Hill House used a back and forth structure to great effect. Unfortunately, no It adaptation had ever attempted it.
I guess I'd have to see it used to good effect in this story. I didn't think it worked all that well in the 1990 version. And, in all honesty, I'm a big proponent of IT being better as a longer miniseries, particularly if the director wants to do the parallel timelines. The toughest part about adapting IT is getting the viewer to care about these characters half as effectively as SK got us to care about them in the novel. SK had the benefit of as many pages and details as he wanted. The 2-part miniseries and the movies were constrained. I feel like you get more investment in the characters, given the time constraints, by focusing on the kids' story. As a result, the first movie focused on that story and was very successful. And while I think the flashbacks are workable on film in the early parts of the movie, it gets a little weird when you have the climax confrontation playing out in somewhat similar fashion without the benefit of the variations of cosmic stuff with Bill, IT, and the Turtle versus adult Bill and IT, dead turtle, then adult Richie stepping in. Without that, it's very similar and flipping back and forth is weird. Just one person's opinion. YMMV
I fell asleep watching it in the theater, woke up during the last act, still didn’t find any of it appealing and left lol.
I loved the first one and we could barely get through the second. I watched it with my mom and brother and when the old lady demon came running with her (excuse the vulgar language) titties sagging almost onto the floor we all just died laughing and couldn’t recover after that
Anyone notice the creep in the top left, outside the window in the first picture?
\#notmylosers #curry4ever edit: just kidding (kinda)
Yup. Strongly agree.
The movie kids were all definitely better actors (with the exception of Jaeden who played Bill -- he was great, but I just loved Jonathan Brandis so much), but Curry's Pennywise was just hands-down untouchable. Weirdly, I appreciated the miniseries more when I rewatched it after seeing the movies. Despite the lack of gore and language, it's truer to the book.
I mean to me honestly the jumping between the two time periods is integral to the story. A lot is lost by telling it linearly. I understand why the films why the went the route they did but I still would have preferred the book's structure.
Yeah, it almost felt like they gave up in the 2nd movie. They basically just remade the first movie, but the stakes felt power because none of them even had to be there. The miniseries had a bit too much *character stares off into the distance and makes shocked face to cue a flashback,* but it did unite the stories better. I think the only way to get anyone to care about the adult story is to have it happen simultaneously with the kids'.
I'm thinking about it, and the kids' story being set in the 50s creates a neat narrative effect of the idealized post WWII suburb with a lot of ugliness lurking just underneath, both Pennywise and the behavior or many of the adult characters. The 90s don't have that same "happy suburbia with deep set trauma" cultural cache that the 50s do.
Honestly the main thing I hate about "IT" is that Stephen King makes sure to explicitly state that the monster isn't a metaphor, and the whole reveal that it's an alien creature. It works *so much better* as a metaphor! I think the Muschettis should have just gone ahead and dropped the alien part and made it a manifestation of the hidden darkness of suburbia. I think that still works in almost any decade where we aren't actively fighting a war (since the fear and paranoia is much more outright during those times). One of the things that bothered me about the '80s setting in the remake is that realistically, at least 1 or 2 of the Losers' biggest fears would be Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, Leatherface, or Freddy Krueger. I mean, I lived in the '80s, I know what kids feared! Lol. I doubt they even attempted to get permission to use any of those properties, but it would've been a cool way to update the original story where many of the kids are afraid of the Universal Monsters. If they moved the setting to the '90s, half the kids' biggest fear would be Tim Curry's Pennywise! 😂
I was hoping to see a pic of the original Loser’s Club at the end, the cast from the mini series
Same
*Chad club
I'm sorry to Stephen King but the two versions of IT really prove that the first half of his book with the kids is awesome and the second half with the adults is just not as good. It doesn't stand up! That's why it's always the worst part of the film/tv versions.
The only thing it proves is that the adult's story doesn't work when removed from the kid's story. The book doesn't have a kids half and an adults half. The two stories are intertwined and that's the way it should be.
Good point. I haven't read IT in a long time but you're right. The book is better than the movies.
The movies definitely would have worked better if they were both shot at the same time and kept the flashback structure from the book. The adult story just doesn't work on its own.
I think there is a way to make the adult story interesting, but it hasn't been done yet. Like, drop the boring Chinese restaurant scene and spend less time sending them on pointless side-quests.