MovieChat Forums > It (1990) Discussion > Aside from some stuff, not a very good a...

Aside from some stuff, not a very good adaptation and the 2017 one was a lot better

posted a month ago by CodyXBrenda (469)
17 replies | jump to latest

Hell, even with the bad CGI and jumpscares, the 2017 was way better. Even if they updated the setting from the 50s to the 80s, it didn't ruin anything. The 1990 miniseries has not only aged poorly, but the acting wasn't very good. Not saying the acting is fantastic in the 2017 adaptation, but it was a hell of lot better then the 90s miniseries. The Losers Club in the 2017 one were a lot better and more relatable than their miniseries counterpart. The ones in the miniseries were just comparable to any afterschool special from the 70s. Also, with it being set in 1960, the only thing missing from these kids would be for them to say "golly" or "swell", like it was a goddamn episode of Leave It To Beaver.

People constantly say the 90s Goosebumps series has aged poorly and has poor acting, well guess what; the IT miniseries is no different. At least the child actors are decent and Tim Curry was by far the better Pennywise of the two adaptations, but in all honestly, it's not a good adaptation and only blind nostalgia is why it still gets loved. It's a shame the 2017 gets criticized. Aside from the bad CGI and jumpscares, it was actually good. They didn't ruin anything. Yes, the bullies were aged up to teenagers and it makes sense. In the novel and miniseries, they were the same age as the losers. Them being older makes it more believable when they pick on the losers. Yes, I'm aware bullies can still pick on kids their exact age but older bullies tormenting younger kids is more terrifying. Also, them not being greasers wouldn't work for the updated 80s setting.

Two scenes I actually like in the miniseries and have actually aged well; The scene where Georgie meets Pennywise and gets eaten and the follow-up scene where the older brother Bill goes into his younger brother's room and feels remorse for his death and the photo album comes to life and leaks blood.

The rest of the miniseries after that goes downhill. The scene where Ben sees Pennywise in the barrens disguised as his dead father is not scary. The scene where Eddie sees Pennywise in the school's gym showers is not even trying to be scary at all. The scene where Richie sees Pennywise in the school's basement in the form of a warewolf was just cringy. The second part is just awful and filled with bad soap opera levels of acting. The adult actors weren't even trying and they got some really good ones like John-boy from The Waltons and John Ritter and their talent is wasted. Even the actress (who just died recently) who played Norma Bates from Psycho IV (also 1990) was wasted as Bill's Wife, Audria only gets a few lines of dailogue.

Even if the 2017 one wasn't all that scary, it was still very entertaining and they don't shove the 80s down your throat like Stranger Things does. Also, why do people blame the 2017 one for being a Stranger Things knockoff? The remake was planned way back in 2010 and was originally going to take place in 1985, which is the same exact year the second half of the novel took place. ST didn't exist yet. Also, the changes in the 2017 were better. Bev is actually a ginger whereas in the miniseries she had brown hair, making the whole poem from Ben make no damn sense. Like what's the point of her hair being "January embers" if her damn hair isn't even red?

[–] AnthonySocksss (1527) 22 days ago

I would maybe agree with you, except I cannot stand bill skarsgaard as Pennywise. Tim Curry is a much better actor and truly embodies the creepiness of the character. Skarsgaard was just trying too hard and looked more like a bad cosplay.

For that reason, the 1990 version is still superior since it actually follows the book.

Also, the reason for the stranger things comparison is that both have slavish references to 80s horror and pop culture. This movie was practically the Goonies combined with Gremlins or Nightmare on Elm st. Both this and ST are example of 80s nostalgia-bait marketing in the 2010s, whereas King’s setting in the 50s was supposed to be more like Stand By Me combined with EC comics era. The movie just didn’t lean into the Tales from the Crypt style enough.

[–] CodyXBrenda (469) 22 days ago

I'm really sick of the hate for the newer one and how people are tyring to say it's one of the worst SK adaptations when far worse ones exist like the new Pet Sematary remake or the crappy 2013 Carrie one that wasn't even trying to be remotely as scary as the 1976 original.

Do I think the 1950s setting works better than the 1980s? Yes, because SK grew up in the 50s and racism and xenophobia was worse back then. However, the 80s setting does not ruin the newer one. Sure, you no longer have Little Richard as he's been replaced by The New Kids on the Block and instead of The Mummy or Wolfman, you now have Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger, but there's nothing wrong with the time peroid change, it just works better with the original one. They couldn't reuse the 50s setting because today's audience were kids in the 80s and 90s whereas when the book came out in 1986, they grew up in the 50s and 60s.

The newer one did have a worse Pennywise because he's supposed to look like a clown similar to Bozo or Ronald McDonald and not some clown from the 17th century. However, the Losers Club was better in the 2017 one. While the acting from their miniseries counterparts was good, their characters were far more bland than their counterparts from the 80s. Like I get it, kids in the 50s and 60s were different from kids in the 80s and 90s, but the newer Richie was a lot funnier and better than Seth Green's portrayal of him from the 1990 verison.

Then we have the bullies. While in most movies, I HATE bullies. Horror (for the most part) is an exception because usually the bullies get what's coming to them and it's usually a deadly fate from the hands of the killer/monster. There aren't very many exceptions where the bullies live or get off, Scott free. The only ones that come to mind are the original Halloween and The Black Phone. The bullies in the 1990 TV miniseries are basically shoddy clones of Ace and his gang from Stand By Me. The bullies are a lot better and more tolerable in the 2017 one. For one, they are still psychotic, but unlike their 1990 miniseries counterparts, they're actually entertaining in a "so bad it's good" kinda way. The miniseries bullies were as forgettable as the bullies from The Garbage Pail Kids Movie or any 80s or 90s Saturday morning cartoon. I've listened to the audiobook of the 1986 novel and yes, they're supposed to be downright cruel and sadistic bastards, like they kill Mike's dog and break Eddie's arm. However, with the stupid toned down crap from the FCC guidelines that were required for the TV miniseries, they come off as lame, run of the mill bullies you'd see in a 90s or 2000s Nickelodeon or Disney Channel show or any 70s or 80s afterschool special.

The nostalgic fanboys and fangirls love to praise this movie for being well made when it's not, while criticizing and shaming the 2017 remake all because of the time peroid change and different looking Pennywise while failing to give praise to the Losers Club. It's really damn sickening that they can't take off those rose tinted glasses and see the miniseries as a dated ass mediocre horror film made for TV. I'm sure for 1990, it was really good for its time and scared kids. But almost 35 years later, it doesn't hold up and looks very outdated and cheesy.