#1  
Old 12-08-2011, 04:02 PM
IT

I just finished the book on Monday and watched the film on Wednesday. This is a terrible adaptation, there is no other way to describe it. I cannot believe it is so well received among fans. Everything is just....wrong. Plot points are smoothed over, changed, or just removed completely, even the major ones. Why was this movie even made if it was geared towards a cable tv audience? It is disgusting!

The characters, adult and child versions, are WAY off, child Bill barely stutters! The introductions of all the adult characters, and Mike calling them, was so awful that I had to look away in disgust. Ben Hanscom get's sloshed in a limo, lives in a New York penthouse, and has some lady following him around? Bill Denborough has a Padawan Jedi mullet, he's not tall? Bev Marsh's husband is some skinny GQ model who get's knocked out cold by a face cream container, while drinking champagne?! Eddie looks like he is in A Flock of Seagulls? Richie is hosting a gameshow and has a stache....I haven't even got to Pennywise yet....

Why does Pennywise talk like he's a New York cab driver who chain smokes cigars? The voice is way off. Tim Curry's performance is all over the map as well. One minute he is pulling off the menacing/sweet mix who seems very inviting, the next he's just acting like a bafoon in some dive bar with that terrible accent and "evil" face. It's absolutely absurd! At one point I actually considered that Tim was just copying the ghost cabbie from 'Scrooged' mixed with Freddy Krueger.

My only hope is someone can come along and produce an adaptation that is faithful to the source and captures the essence of Stephen King's vision. Hopefully some one adapts for a premium channel like HBO or Showtime, or makes a two-part R rated film. I feel bad for all those who have only seen the movie, and think this is the actual story of "It."
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-08-2011, 04:37 PM
I actually really like the television adaptation of IT, but it has a lot of nostalgia for me. I can definitely understand where the disappointment could come into play, but it's an enjoyable film for me. The book was much, much better, obviously.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-08-2011, 09:36 PM
My favorite book of all time. As a kid the movie freaked me the fuck out. Today....eh. The first half with the kids is still pretty good imo. But the adult segment isn't nearly as gripping.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-09-2011, 10:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by poopontheshoes7 View Post
My favorite book of all time. As a kid the movie freaked me the fuck out. Today....eh. The first half with the kids is still pretty good imo. But the adult segment isn't nearly as gripping.
I agree. The terror that the first half brings is awesome, especially when you watch it at that age. The adult part and their fight against IT is just not as great.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-13-2011, 01:32 PM
The book was good, save for the group "gang-bang" near the end.

I agree, the movie was far, FAR worse.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-16-2011, 11:20 AM
I just feel that the film adaptation takes so many liberties it's like a different story entirely. Most of the love for this movie can only be explained by a vast majority of people who really like it, have not read the book. Not saying any of you haven't, I'm talking in general. I understand books and film adaptations are different, and why they do it, but this went way too far with the differences. Jurassic Park went far, but It was just on another continent. The story is completely changed.

1) The way characters meet each other, interact
2) The adult characters lives, how they are contacted
3) How It approaches each character individually as children
4) The stress of being one of the outcasts and dealing with the constant torment and extreme violence of Henry Bowers
5) The children's psychological and physical abuse/neglect of their own parents
6) The forming and banding together as one of the Loser's, this was the central ingredient to the story and they totally missed it in the film. It was so rushed that the reason these kids are together and all their strenghts and weaknesses is just missed.
7) It. I know people love Tim Curry, but It just wasn't IT! Everything about him and what he does to them as children, and how he tries to shun them away as adults is just absent from the film. It was trying to break the children up psychologically by using their parents, the elders of the town,and Henry Bowers, but that wasn't touched upon in the film.
8) The house on Neibolt St. A HUGE part of the book. Missing.
9) Mike Hanlon and the elders
10) Patrick Hockstetter
11) Bill's internal desire to get his parents affection back and blaming himself for Georgie's death.
12) ALL the events leading to and during when the children go into the sewer to face it.
13) Beverly Marsh's father and husband, pretty much Beverly Marsh's entire character.

I could go on and on and on about how bad this really is, it does the book no justice. I see why people love Tim Curry as Pennywise, but if they really understood and knew what Pennywise stood for and was doing, they would think so much less of his portrayal.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-16-2011, 02:57 PM
Stephen King's IT is perhaps my favorite book ever. I read it after watching the film adaptation numerous times, and it downright chilled me. There's just something about children dying brutal deaths in so many shocking ways that makes it difficult to read at times. I also love the interludes, providing the reader with insight into the town of Derry. We get a strong feel of the atmosphere and the knowledge of just how long IT has been around; how many people he's affected and the numerous forms it's taken. Beyond the horror, it's a great coming-of-age tale. I love reading about these "outcasts" coming together and forming a strong bond. Much like King's "The Body" ("Stand by Me") you see a genuine relationship amongst these kids and you feel sympathy for them, you root for them, and you fear for them.

Having seeing the mini-series first, and having liked it quite a bit, I don't despise it like I should. Tim Curry is amazing as Pennywise; I love his performance, both creepy and zany. He's the reason so many people today are frightened of clowns. However, the series does lack the intensity of the book, and the overwhelming sense of dread. Gone is much of the children's backstories--where is Beverly's mother? Bill's distance from his parents is almost entirely gone. What about the constant racism Mike and his father endure? Where IS Mike's father--he was such a strong presence in the book and his encounter with IT proved adults can also be affected by it.

I understand that because this was a mini-series on cable it couldn't be gory, but that's part of what made the novel so shocking. The deaths were described in vivid, gory detail but we see NOTHING in the film (although one may argue not seeing it is just as effective. I find it lazy). Eddie's encounter with the leper is gone entirely; despite enjoying the shower scene in the film, I miss how frightening those scenes were. The dead kids in the sandpipe, the sprinting mummy, the shark from Jaws, the reocurring presence of the werewolf, and the vampire were all missing from the film. The town's history was a brief aside and was not given the weight it should.

Overall I like the mini-series. It's a fun movie to watch on Halloween and it's probably the best of the "scary clown" movies. However, it pales in comparison to the novel. There was a rumored 2-hour R-Rated film adaptation in the works but that seems to have fallen through (anyone heard anything?) What I would love, and what was originally planned back in '04, was a 4-hour mini-series. Please let Showtime or HBO pick that up! This is a great opportunity to bring a faithful rendering of the novel to life. I'm sure I'm not alone.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-16-2011, 04:04 PM
I don't even know if a 4 hour series is long enough. How about a 6 hour 6 episode Halloween HBO special. I've never understood why so many of King's books are made for tv miniseries, but they air them over 2 episodes and air them on a family friendly station, money and ratings ruin everything!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-16-2011, 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Ed View Post
I don't even know if a 4 hour series is long enough. How about a 6 hour 6 episode Halloween HBO special. I've never understood why so many of King's books are made for tv miniseries, but they air them over 2 episodes and air them on a family friendly station, money and ratings ruin everything!
Yeah I've always found that odd also. I've read that the original mini-series was supposed to be around 6 hours, King himself approved of the script and thought it was great. Why they reduced it to half that length is beyond me.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-16-2011, 05:18 PM
You can tell there is stuff missing. I watched it with my girlfriend the other night, and she even said, without reading the book, that it seemed like stuff was missing from the movie. Almost as if things were taken out post production.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-04-2012, 08:26 AM
It's all about nostalgia. I saw the TV movie in 1991 when I was was 12 years old and it scared the shit out of me. I actually read the novel afterwards and kept thinking "I hope the book's ending is better than the TV movie ending". Well, it isn't The book is great, of course, possibly King's best. The TV adaptation doesn't hold up but I still fondly remember how fucking terrified I was when I watched it the first time. This and watching the first Nightmare on Elm Street on VHS (secretly, when my parents were on vacation) are the two horror flicks that left the deepest scars, uh impressions on me in my childhood.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-04-2012, 11:04 AM
I enjoyed the first act, it's the finale that I have a big problem with. A ridiculous spider hiding in a cave, what in the hell was that all about? That's not how I remember the book. I don't want to be too scathing because I felt they handled part one extremely well and adapting a Stephen King novel is notoriously difficult, there is so much detail and characterization to contend with. However there are some brilliant peformances from the young leads, really impressive but 'IT' runs out of steam during the second act. Very disappointing because it could and should have been so much better.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-05-2012, 08:25 AM
Only childhood nostalgia keeps me from saying the adaptation is a complete failure.

The book is a masterpiece of writing and is terrifying. The adaptation is, well, an adaptation. They are usually very good at falling short of expectations. Just watch The Shining and then read the novel.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-05-2012, 08:38 AM
How many film adaptations have remained trully faithfull to the source material? There is a clear and obvious distinction between a book and a film, the latter you only have a maximum of two hours, possibly more, to tell your story, with a novel your canvas is limitless so I always expect a certain amount of trimming come the film adaptation, it's a regrettable part of the process, but at the very least I expect the core elements of the book to be fleshed out in particular detailed characterizations. 'IT' hit all the right notes in the first half and all the wrong notes in the second.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-06-2012, 12:37 PM
I just can't see past it being a total piece of garbage.
I understand that what we saw was an adaptation of the story, and that's fine, but the writers took some serious liberties, in doing so killing the story. The content of the novel was fantastic, a childhood companion piece on the exterior, but inside there is the dark and gritty evil of It, as well as the evil of the children's personal struggle with family and society, the adaptation didn't convey any of this! This is where the adaptation failed.

I'm all for taking some serious liberties when the adaptation is GOOD, ie: Jurassic Park, but the changes they made to the story in IT were terrible.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-07-2012, 09:17 AM
I can't pretend that the novel wasn't much, much better than the film, and that my fondness of the latter isn't largely a product of nostalgia, but I will defend this film 'till I die. The child portion worked really well, and I liked how they told the story one facet of life at a time from childhood-to-adulthood rather than how the book unfolded(although I love how the book did it, this was a neat liberty to take, IMO, providing for two climaxes rather than one grandiose one). Although the young section of the book was much superior to the adults', I still found both to hold up well...aside from...the spider!!

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-07-2012, 03:05 PM
Hey, to each his own. The film, to me, just did not capture the personal struggles of the children, with each of their personal lives, nor their adulthood, which made up about 85% of the novel. The film focused on the children vs It, whereas the novel focused on the children vs each of their own personal struggles (family, guilt, loneliness, society, becoming their own person, etc etc) as well as It, but It played into and along with each of the Loser's life. The feeling I got from the film was: "Hey there's a monster in Derry and It wants to eat us! Let's go kill it!"
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-12-2012, 03:20 AM
Novel -> Film any day of the week. And that's a fact.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-01-2012, 08:41 PM
The movie is as bad as the TV version of Showgirls.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-06-2012, 08:26 PM
The film left out what was, to me, the most terrifying part of the book. When Mike, as a kid, gets chased into a pipe by Pennywise in bird firm, with that beak just inches away from tearing him apart. That alone makes it inexcusable.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-12-2012, 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Ed View Post
Hey, to each his own. The film, to me, just did not capture the personal struggles of the children, with each of their personal lives, nor their adulthood, which made up about 85% of the novel. The film focused on the children vs It, whereas the novel focused on the children vs each of their own personal struggles (family, guilt, loneliness, society, becoming their own person, etc etc) as well as It, but It played into and along with each of the Loser's life. The feeling I got from the film was: "Hey there's a monster in Derry and It wants to eat us! Let's go kill it!"
Its a thousand-page book. The last thousand page bok to be adapted into a good film was over 10 hours long in total (LOTR)
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-15-2012, 01:33 PM
Ive been meaning to read this book for years....I was absolutely terrified of the film when I was a child...
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-17-2012, 06:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Its a thousand-page book. The last thousand page bok to be adapted into a good film was over 10 hours long in total (LOTR)
Yeah, but come on a network like ABC picked it up as a miniseries...
Now I would be happier if HBO/Starz/Showtime picked it up as a 4 or 6 part miniseries and did it justice. But there has be no, and I repeat NO, good Stephen King miniseries on network TV. Storm of the Century was good, but that wasn't based off of one of his novels, he wrote that specifically for TV.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-20-2012, 03:44 PM
What is he in the book? and what are his dead lights? The movie makes him out to be some kind of alien and doesn't tell anything about the dead lights.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-21-2013, 08:51 PM
It wasn't a cable TV miniseries. It was a broadcast TV miniseries. Only so much you can show with a 2 part TV movie in 1990. I remember I was the same age as the kids, and it spooked me pretty good. Book was clearly better. But there's no way they could have covered all the good stuff in the book. They didn't have the time, and couldn't include most of the content.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump