MovieChat Forums > It (1990) Discussion > Stephen King's IT: 1950s vs. 1980s - Whi...

Stephen King's IT: 1950s vs. 1980s - Which Decade Is The Better Setting


https://screenrant.com/stephen-king-it-1950s-1980s-better-setting-reason/

A modern audience is definitely much more receptive to the movie version of IT. For one, most of the movie's core audience remembers the 1980s, or at least understands the general trends and fads of the decade. They can picture themselves in the shoes of the "Losers" more easily, and can feel nostalgic over the '80s set and costume designs, as well as the movie or music references the characters make.

They would, therefore, be less receptive to the TV miniseries. The 1950s is somewhat of a less approachable decade to today's viewers. It would certainly be more difficult for younger audience members to understand the nuances of the time, to grasp the references made, and to ultimately understand and relate to the characters. Also, when the miniseries came out in 1990, the '80s were barely even a thing of the past.

In another vein, setting the IT movie in the 1980s made for more interesting looks for the characters. The clothing trends of the time were creative and colorful, while the 1950s general style was more conforming and plain. Additionally, perhaps the language some of the "Losers" use in the movie—hilariously filled with swear words—would have been different if the movie was set in the '50s, a decade in which children and teens were probably less likely to speak that way. While both versions tell a good story, the modern retelling of Stephen King's IT seems to be the preferred choice for most, as the 1980s are not just a popular era for horror media of late, but a time period that reflects a lot of social changes and movements that are useful to bolster a horror movie, where the 1950s can seem almost innocent and boring by comparison.

reply

The basic problem with the '80s is that some of the kids fears ought to have been the analogue of the original series Teenage Werewolf and The Mummy (along with the big bad from the novel The Crawling Eye). The problem is that in the '80s these would likely have been Freddy, Jason or Michael Myers along with the Alien and... But why go on? These are all copyrighted within an inch of their damned souls.

reply

Agreed. Also, clowns were not as popular in the 1980s, whereas in the 1950s and early 1960s they were still very commonly seen on television, etc.

reply

Bozo The Clown was still around in the 80s. Hell, I even watched him, when I was only 2 years old at a babysitter's house. My earliest memories ever.

reply

Well, that's a shitty review. It makes it seem like living in the 1950s was like living in an episode of Leave It to Beaver.

reply

I can only think that it WAS. The 50s to me sounds TERRIBLE.

reply

The 50s were like the medieval version of America!

reply

The big cities were shitty in the 50s. Outside of that, America was pretty nice.

reply

Rural America was like leave it to beaver in the 50s, but the cities were rough. That's what pushed everyone to move to the suburbs.

reply

The 50s weren't happy days, the 70s lied to us!

reply

They actually were a lot like that, other than a likely high domestic violence rate which didn't usually get reported.

reply

Yeah, if you were a white male.

reply

Yes, blacks have a long history of violence in their communities.

reply

In the 50s, it was "okay" to burn a cross on the lawn of an African American family. Nowadays, you'd get 5 years in prison, just for that alone.

reply

That's simply not true. Maybe in a few isolated communities in the south would a burning cross get little attention, but your talking the rare exception, not the rule. The simple truth is, a black man in the 50s was far more likely to get killed by another black than a white. That has remained mostly unchanged to this day.

reply

The KKK's haydays still reigned supreme, by the 1950s. I have no idea how relevant they are, nowadays. Are they even still around and do they hang out with the Nazis, like they did on the Jerry Springer Show, in the second Austin Powers? I do remember that scene where Dr. Evil goes psycho on the KKK and Nazis and tells them they were born in their mother's assholes.

reply

I like the original time setting, because it’s the way the story was intended, but I understand why they would change it in 2017. It would be a much bigger challenge to have to recreate 2 different time periods, and make them feel authentic, rather than just 1, and a modern setting.

Ultimately I don’t think the time period affects the story much, so it’s fine. The beginning with Georgie and the paper boat is one thing that feels like a hold over from the 50s. I think a kid in 1989 would just stay in the house and play Nintendo, or watch tv. It’s seems more like something a 50s kid would do out of boredom.

I disagree with the part of the article that said the time period makes it less relatable. The kids in original are still very relatable, because they are actually 80s kids, in a series in the late 80s early 90s

reply

It would've felt odd having the 2017 adaptation set in the 50s and the other half take place almost 60 years later. I mean we don't want to see the adult losers as senior citizens battling a clown, with canes! It just wouldn't have worked out, if Chapter 1 was in 1958 and Chapter 2 was in 2015. That's a 57 year difference versus a 27 year one.

The updated late 80s setting feels more akin to Spielberg era films like The Goonies and thus it still works. It would've been cool if Richie saw Freddy Krueger in the school basement, instead of the Wolfman.

reply

I thought the Clown in the 80's version was creepier looking than the reboot version

reply

Both decades compliment each other.

I also like the group of kids much better in this version.

reply

The childhood setting was IMO superior to the adult setting, I thought the second half of the film wasn't as good as the first half.

reply