Stephen King's "IT" Part I and Part II

[Art Vandelay]

I wonder why she finished first? I guess there wouldn't be much location work to be done.

 

[Matt Mortem]

I wonder why she finished first? I guess there wouldn't be much location work to be done.

Probably scheduling. She might have another movie lined up so her availability would require her to finish first.

 

[BH/HHH]

I was under the impression it was supposed to be out next month, but haven't heard anything since last December. I put off purchasing Part I because I didn't want to double dip.

Same here haha

 

[nite-owl]

Probably scheduling. She might have another movie lined up so her availability would require her to finish first.

Probably more reshoots for X-Men: Dark Phoenix.

 

[James.B]

Spoiler: Set picture

Spoiler

 

[Finarfiniel]

Spoiler: Set picture

Spoiler

Awesome, glad to see they seem to be adapting a variation of that particular Richie scene from the book.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Great photos!

 

[Luigi]

Spoiler: Set picture

Spoiler

Hah, love that they're doing that sequence.

 

[MAN O STEEL]

I just finished the book for the first time. Having never read it before and after having read it I actually feel like IT 2017 was nowhere near as well adapted as the 1990 version. Obviously I understand the new version is R rated so they could do more but going back and watching both the miniseries and the 2017 version again I felt like they adapted more actual things from the book in the miniseries than the 2017 version which changed sooooo much. I loved the 2017 version when it came out but now I've soured on it quite a bit. Am I the only one?

 

[The Joker]

I just finished the book for the first time. Having never read it before and after having read it I actually feel like IT 2017 was nowhere near as well adapted as the 1990 version. Obviously I understand the new version is R rated so they could do more but going back and watching both the miniseries and the 2017 version again I felt like they adapted more actual things from the book in the miniseries than the 2017 version which changed sooooo much. I loved the 2017 version when it came out but now I've soured on it quite a bit. Am I the only one?

Obviously the miniseries adapted more from the book than the 2017 movie since the miniseries covered the adults' part of the story, too, while the 2017 movie focused only on the kids' part. Watch part 2 next year which covers the adults' story, and then you can compare the new movies to the miniseries regarding which adapted more from the book.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Obviously the miniseries adapted more from the book than the 2017 movie since the miniseries covered the adults' part of the story, too, while the 2017 movie focused only on the kids' part. Watch part 2 next year which covers the adults' story, and then you can compare the new movies to the miniseries regarding which adapted more from the book.

I've never read the book, how would you say the film did at adapting the kids half of the story?

 

[The Joker]

I've never read the book, how would you say the film did at adapting the kids half of the story?

I think it did a terrific job. The only two criticisms I have is Mike was under developed, which the miniseries is also guilty of. And Henry Bowers was not utilized as much as he is in the book. The miniseries actually did a better job with Bowers making the Losers' lives a living hell. They didn't show enough of that in the 2017 movie. He never felt like a constant thorn in their side.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I think it did a terrific job. The only two criticisms I have is Mike was under developed, which the miniseries is also guilty of. And Henry Bowers was not utilized as much as he is in the book. The miniseries actually did a better job with Bowers making the Losers' lives a living hell. They didn't show enough of that in the 2017 movie. He never felt like a constant thorn in their side.

Gotha, King's books have often not been adapted to fans satisfaction, would you say IT is the best there's been in this regard?

 

[The Joker]

Gotha, King's books have often not been adapted to fans satisfaction, would you say IT is the best there's been in this regard?

Its definitely in the top 5 along with Misery, The Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me, and The Green Mile. But to answer your question, I wouldn't say its the best. Personally I'd give that to Shawshank or Stand By Me.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Its definitely in the top 5 along with Misery, The Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me, and The Green Mile. But to answer your question, I wouldn't say its the best. Personally I'd give that to Shawshank or Stand By Me.

Interesting, I've seen 4 of those 5, cool to see the views of a King fan on them as actual adaptions.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Its definitely in the top 5 along with Misery, The Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me, and The Green Mile. But to answer your question, I wouldn't say its the best. Personally I'd give that to Shawshank or Stand By Me.

agreed! Its easily one of my favorite stephen king book adaptions and in my top 5 for sure.

 

[Drizzle]

Its definitely in the top 5 along with Misery, The Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me, and The Green Mile. But to answer your question, I wouldn't say its the best. Personally I'd give that to Shawshank or Stand By Me.

It's funny how the best King adaptations are ironically the ones based on non-horror stories (Shawshank, Stand by Me, The Green Mile). But out of the ones that are strictly horror, I'd put It Chapter 1 right up there with Misery, Carrie (the original) and Kubrick's The Shining. Now I know that King didn't like the film version of The Shining and it really isn't a great adaptation of the source material but it's still brilliant in its own way. After all, It isn't a perfect adaptation either considering the story is moved up 30 years compared to the book but that doesn't negatively impact it.

 

[MAN O STEEL]

Obviously the miniseries adapted more from the book than the 2017 movie since the miniseries covered the adults' part of the story, too, while the 2017 movie focused only on the kids' part. Watch part 2 next year which covers the adults' story, and then you can compare the new movies to the miniseries regarding which adapted more from the book.

I'm not talking about it only featuring the kids portion of the story I'm talking about the contents portion of the kids story alone. Although the kids portion of the story is longer in the 2017 version than the 1990 miniseries the 2017 version changed a lot of the kids story from the book where as after reading the book I saw more things lifted from it in the miniseries. As an example in the 2017 version, Stan Uris sees a creepy painting woman, something completely made up for the film, not in the book, yet in the miniseries, even though there is a minor difference it mostly retains his experience of Pennywise from the book just a bit more PG rated.

IT 2017:

Changed Mike's backstory and importance for no reason at all.

Completely removed the fact that Beverly's father beat her constantly and turned it sexual instead, again, serving no purpose.

The importance Bills bike SILVER has on the story, along with him saying HI YO SILVER, AWAY!, completely removed.

Pennywises conversation with Georgie in the drain is almost 100% different, only retaining some of the original dialogue from the novel. Including IT draging away Georgie, again, for no real purpose.

The guy they got to play Bowers was really bad. He was extremely wooden and had no personality and looked like a skinny geek himself. Was not scary or imposing.

They wasted Patrick Hockstetter by not showing just how menacing and psychotic he really was. He became a throw away character.

They turned the intense Rock fight from the book into an action comedy scene. With Richie calling him a mullet wearing *******. Again changing what made that damn scene so intense and scary in the book.

No one ever says, Beep Beep Richie to Richie yet somehow Pennywise says that to him when they're trapped in the house on Neibolt St. Why use that line for Pennywise if none of the other losers say that to him?.



There's many other examples of how the 2017 failed where the miniseries didn't and how I actually favor that version now having read the book. Just pisses me off because I loved the 2017 version but having now read the book and loved it so much, IT 2017 just annoys me now.

 

[MadderMaximus]

Its definitely in the top 5 along with Misery, The Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me, and The Green Mile. But to answer your question, I wouldn't say its the best. Personally I'd give that to Shawshank or Stand By Me.

I agree with this assessment.

The only real change I didn't care for in It was Mike underutilized. More of Henry, like mentioned, would've been good too, but there was a runtime issue.

I knew Patrick, how he's represented in the book, just wouldn't have made it on screen, but I was satisfied with the little taste of a teen sadist that we got. At least he was there this time, and not completely cut out.

 

[The Joker]

I'm not talking about it only featuring the kids portion of the story I'm talking about the contents portion of the kids story alone. Although the kids portion of the story is longer in the 2017 version than the 1990 miniseries the 2017 version changed a lot of the kids story from the book where as after reading the book I saw more things lifted from it in the miniseries. As an example in the 2017 version, Stan Uris sees a creepy painting woman, something completely made up for the film, not in the book, yet in the miniseries, even though there is a minor difference it mostly retains his experience of Pennywise from the book just a bit more PG rated.

IT 2017:

Changed Mike's backstory and importance for no reason at all.

Completely removed the fact that Beverly's father beat her constantly and turned it sexual instead, again, serving no purpose.

The importance Bills bike SILVER has on the story, along with him saying HI YO SILVER, AWAY!, completely removed.

Pennywiss conversation with Georgie in the drain is almost 100% different, only retaining some of the original dialogue from the novel. Including IT draging away Georgie, again, for no real purpose.

The guy they got to play Bowers was really bad. He was extremely wooden and had no personality and looked like a skinny geek himself. Was not scary or imposing.

They wasted Patrick Hockstetter by not showing just how menacing and psychotic he really was. He became a throw away character.

They turned the intense Rock fight from the book into an action comedy scene. With Richie calling him a mullet wearing *******. Again changing what made that damn scene so intense and scary in the book.

No one ever says, Beep Beep Richie to Richie yet somehow Pennywise says that to him when they're trapped in the house on Neibolt St. Why use that line for Pennywise if none of the other losers say that to him?.


There's many other examples of how the 2017 failed where the miniseries didn't and how I actually favor that version now having read the book. Just pisses me off because I loved the 2017 version but having now read the book and loved it so much, IT 2017 just annoys me now.

The miniseries is far more guilty of omitting important details. They changed Eddie's encounter with the Leper at Neibolt into the shower rods in the gym room spraying him with water (hilariously lame).

Richie's encounter with Pennywise is seeing the Wolfman in the school basement.

Mike had no backstory at all in the miniseries. We see nothing of his home life.

Bowers had no relationship with his father, removing the important element where he kills him and totally sets him off the rails.

We do see the bicycle, Silver, in the 2017 movie and hear Bill say Hi yo Silver away. It was not omitted.

Pennywise's conversation with Georgie is much closer to the book than the 2017 version with the whole imaginary circus and the smells Georgie thinks he can smell, along with the usual talk about wanting his boat back.

The relationship with Beverly's father served the exact same as the book. He was an abusive bastard whom she was terrified of. Except it was sexual abuse rather than physical. And even then, if you read the book you should know that her father does try to rape her.

At least Patrick Hockstetter was in the movie and had an actual personality, and shown to terrorize the Losers. The miniseries didn't do that.

I'll give you the rock fight being disappointing, but so was the miniseries version. It was rushed, tame, and totally devoid of any tension. And Richie insulted Bowers in both versions - "Get some new material, champ", "Go blow your dad, you mullet wearing a-hole".

Beep-beep Richie is not some critical character aspect that defines Richie. If you want to complain about omitting important aspects of the story, then complain about the miniseries ignoring the house on Neibolt Street, or there being no romantic connection between Bill and Beverly as kids or adults, or Mike having no confrontation with Pennywise himself before he met the Losers etc.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Nah, Steel is right.

I watched the mini series as a kid, and thought it was scary. Years later, I read the book, and revisited the mini series, and was disappointed at how poorly it held up. A lot of it isn't great. But if we are to compare them just from an adaptation standpoint, the mini series is much truer to the source material. Yes, the movie has Patrick, but so what if he bares little resemblance to the character in the book? He might as well not have been there.

The only thing the movie has over the mini series is the acting of the kids, and it's portrayal of Ben and Beverly. But there are just too many wrong zig zags made from the source material.

- Eddie breaks his arm. Okay, the movie has that much going for it, but unlike the book, Henry doesn't break it, Eddie just falls. I don't get this change at all. Maybe they wanted to streamline the book? But it's a poorer choice.

- The movie has the House on Neibolt, but it makes this weird choice to have some of the kids stay outside and stand guard. Sorry, that's not who the Losers are. They either all go, or none of them go. Which brings us to...

- The movie's completely out of character, and totally unnecessary disbanding of the Losers after Neibolt. Nope, Richie would never turn his back on Bill. That's not who he is. That's not who any of them are. That's what gives Bill a certain sense of self loathing, and a slight resentment of the others knowing they are continuing to follow him on this crusade of his to avenge his brother.

- Georgie's interaction with Pennywise is slightly closer to the book, but having Georgie crawl away, and scream "Billlleeeeee" is tacky. Again, Bill's entire mission that summer is to kill It, not find Georgie (since Georgie dies in the book).

- Stan has parents in the movie, but not in the book. There's a reason for that. Stan is the adult of the Losers Club. But the director either didn't get that, or chose to ignore it.

- The movie's final act is just a disaster. The mini series pulls its punches, but I feel I'm watching the closer adaptation.

Neither is great, but in terms of adaptation, I give the mini series the edge over the movie.

 

[The Joker]

Nah, he's not right. You can't argue with facts. The fact is the miniseries deviates far more, and omits much more.

Patrick's inclusion in the movie acknowledges the presence and existence of the character, and the fact he associated with Henry in making the Losers lives hell. Whereas omitting him altogether is just that; omitting a character from the book whom Pennywise ultimately kills.

The fact Bowers broke his arm wasn't the important element in the book. It was the effect it had on Eddie, and how he ultimately stood up to his overbearing mother.

I think you're forgetting that at Neibolt all the Losers did end up going in. In fact Beverly saved Bill and Richie by stabbing Pennywise in the head with that metal pole. Not that having some of them stand guard outside means not facing this together. They were just acting smart by having a look out outside.

You thinking Georgie scream Bill's name as he dies as being tacky is irrelevant. We're talking about the material from the book, not what you think is tacky. Bill's entire mission that summer is not to kill It. Not even remotely. They don't even realize that there is an It until they all have their various encounters with Pennywise over the course of the summer, discuss it, and then decide to kill It. Even the tacky miniseries did it that way. Its not until they save Mike, and they see the vision of Pennywise in his scrapbook that they realize its what's been killing kids and decide to finish it off.

Stan's not the adult of the group. He's the skeptic. The realist. Which the 2017 movie emphasized a lot more than the miniseries. In the miniseries Stan just covered his ears and said no no no, while the Losers said yes yes yes until he agreed with them lol.

The movie's final act is terrific, and packs a punch and is much closer to the book's. By far. Only thing the miniseries did right there was omitting the horrendous book scene of Bev screwing all the boys before they take on Pennywise.

If we want to get into the real nitty gritty of why the 2017 movie did a better job, like the general characterizations (even simple things like the kids are actually allowed to swear), the depiction of Derry and how it ignores Pennywise's existence, the hardships the kids have to endure in their lives e.g. the scene of Beverly in the school bathroom alone trumps anything the miniseries did.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Nah, he's not right. You can't argue with facts. The fact is the miniseries deviates far more, and omits much more.

Patrick's inclusion in the movie acknowledges the presence and existence of the character, and the fact he associated with Henry in making the Losers lives hell. Whereas omitting him altogether is just that; omitting a character from the book whom Pennywise ultimately kills.

The fact Bowers broke his arm wasn't the important element in the book. It was the effect it had on Eddie, and how he ultimately stood up to his overbearing mother.

I think you're forgetting that at Neibolt all the Losers did end up going in. In fact Beverly saved Bill and Richie by stabbing Pennywise in the head with that metal pole. Not that having some of them stand guard outside means not facing this together. They were just acting smart by having a look out outside.

You thinking Georgie scream Bill's name as he dies as being tacky is irrelevant. We're talking about the material from the book, not what you think is tacky. Bill's entire mission that summer is not to kill It. Not even remotely. They don't even realize that there is an It until they all have their various encounters with Pennywise over the course of the summer, discuss it, and then decide to kill It. Even the tacky miniseries did it that way. Its not until they save Mike, and they see the vision of Pennywise in his scrapbook that they realize its what's been killing kids and decide to finish it off.

Stan's not the adult of the group. He's the skeptic. The realist. Which the 2017 movie emphasized a lot more than the miniseries. In the miniseries Stan just covered his ears and said no no no, while the Losers said yes yes yes until he agreed with them lol.

The movie's final act is terrific, and packs a punch and is much closer to the book's. By far. Only thing the miniseries did right there was omitting the horrendous book scene of Bev screwing all the boys before they take on Pennywise.

If we want to get into the real nitty gritty of why the 2017 movie did a better job, like the general characterizations (even simple things like the kids are actually allowed to swear), the depiction of Derry and how it ignores Pennywise's existence, the hardships the kids have to endure in their lives e.g. the scene of Beverly in the school bathroom alone trumps anything the miniseries did.

Bravo!

 

[Art Vandelay]

Nah, he's not right. You can't argue with facts. The fact is the miniseries deviates far more, and omits much more.

Patrick's inclusion in the movie acknowledges the presence and existence of the character, and the fact he associated with Henry in making the Losers lives hell. Whereas omitting him altogether is just that; omitting a character from the book whom Pennywise ultimately kills.

The fact Bowers broke his arm wasn't the important element in the book. It was the effect it had on Eddie, and how he ultimately stood up to his overbearing mother.

I think you're forgetting that at Neibolt all the Losers did end up going in. In fact Beverly saved Bill and Richie by stabbing Pennywise in the head with that metal pole. Not that having some of them stand guard outside means not facing this together. They were just acting smart by having a look out outside.

You thinking Georgie scream Bill's name as he dies as being tacky is irrelevant. We're talking about the material from the book, not what you think is tacky. Bill's entire mission that summer is not to kill It. Not even remotely. They don't even realize that there is an It until they all have their various encounters with Pennywise over the course of the summer, discuss it, and then decide to kill It. Even the tacky miniseries did it that way. Its not until they save Mike, and they see the vision of Pennywise in his scrapbook that they realize its what's been killing kids and decide to finish it off.

Stan's not the adult of the group. He's the skeptic. The realist. Which the 2017 movie emphasized a lot more than the miniseries. In the miniseries Stan just covered his ears and said no no no, while the Losers said yes yes yes until he agreed with them lol.

The movie's final act is terrific, and packs a punch and is much closer to the book's. By far. Only thing the miniseries did right there was omitting the horrendous book scene of Bev screwing all the boys before they take on Pennywise.

If we want to get into the real nitty gritty of why the 2017 movie did a better job, like the general characterizations (even simple things like the kids are actually allowed to swear), the depiction of Derry and how it ignores Pennywise's existence, the hardships the kids have to endure in their lives e.g. the scene of Beverly in the school bathroom alone trumps anything the miniseries did.

I'll try to reply to each of your points, since I'm not sure it's possible to quote each sentence individually.

- Patrick actually is in the mini series, although he bears more resemblance to Victor Criss than he does Patrick. I suppose you could make the argument that the movie version is closer to the book, but neither delve into Patrick's psychosis, or his relationship to Henry. His demise (one of the most memorably unsettling moments from the book) is kept off screen.

- If you want to talk about Henry "making their lives a living hell", it seems curious that you wouldn't mind them changing the scene where he causes physical pain to one of the Losers by Eddie simply falling through a floor. In the book, Henry breaks his arm as payback for the rock fight. But not just that, Eddie does find courage to take on lost shot at him, telling him he's crazy, just like his father. That in itself is significant.

Speaking of Eddie, yes, he stands up to his mom. But the movie makes another poor diversion from the book by having Eddie's bully tell him his medication is a placebo. In the book, it's Mr. Keene. This is another example of the writer(s) not really getting the source material. Because Mr. Keene is someone who Eddie's trusts. He has no reason to lie to Eddie, in fact, he has his best interests in mind. This isn't the case with the bully, since her opinion would be suspect to begin with.

One more point on Eddie. Yes, we see the leper, and I won't disagree it's a better scene than what we got in the mini series. But this is one of the many surface details that are taken from the book without any idea of why it's in there in the first place. Eddie's leper is based on an earlier encounter with a hobo who makes a sexual advance towards him. The sexual overtones are completely left out, though.

- Yeah, I did watch the movie, so I did notice they were there. But why have most of them keep watch? While the mini series did cut out Neibolt, elements, and straight dialogue, were taken, and simply moved to the sewers encounter at the end of the part 1.

- I think you're taking some of my comments too literally. But even if it wasn't literally the entire summer, that was Bill's prime motivation. Prior to the Losers going to Neibolt, he and Richie even go so far as to bring a gun so Bill can kill It. The others might be slow to join together, but Bill getting his revenge is on his mind fairly early on. And again, the movie differs quite a bit by having Bill presume Georgie is still alive.

- Again, you're only focussing on the surface. Besides Stan literally being described as having the appearance of a little adult, he is symbolically an adult. Unlike all of the other Losers, we never meet his parents in the book (or, as I recall, the mini series). We hear about them, but we never meet them. And I believe it's because of all of the Losers, he's the closest to being removed from adolescence. And where his rationalism comes from.

Also, going back to the movie, why does Stan have his head wrapped if Pennywise's marks aren't visible to the adult eye?

- The final confrontation is a total mess. First, you have the inexcusable decision to turn Beverly, the movie's strongest character, into a damsel in distress. In the mini series, she is active participant, going down to the sewers, and is the one to put Pennywise to his early sumbler. Gone is the symbolism of using the childhood toy slingshot as a weapon against It, instead they use Mike's grandfather's cattle gun. Speaking of Mike, he tries to kill Henry, and it's completely glossed over. Henry, for his part, kills his friends, unlike the mini series which sticks to the book by having them killed by It.

- As for the nitty gritty, yes, characters swear, but why is this a good thing? Richie is far more crass and obnoxious than he is in the book and mini series. I don't remember Richie making jokes about nailing Eddie's mom in the book.

As for Derry, the mini series gave us the better version. First, the Barrens actually look like the Barrens. They're dark, and sinister, unlike the movie's depiction, which seems to consist purely of a quarry. In fact, the Losers hardly spend any time in the Barrens, in contrast to the mini series, which included the dam building plot. The rest of the city is depicted as being sunny, and pleasant looking, with the exception of the house on Neibolt. And I'm not sure we get that much of a different insight to the town than we do with the mini series.

I don't like having to defend the mini series since I'm not a fan, but I reject the notion that the movie is much more faithful to the book. I think they both have their strengths and weaknesses, but neither is vastly superior to the other.

 

[The Joker]

I'll try to reply to each of your points, since I'm not sure it's possible to quote each sentence individually.

- Patrick actually is in the mini series, although he bears more resemblance to Victor Criss than he does Patrick. I suppose you could make the argument that the movie version is closer to the book, but neither delve into Patrick's psychosis, or his relationship to Henry. His demise (one of the most memorably unsettling moments from the book) is kept off screen.

- If you want to talk about Henry "making their lives a living hell", it seems curious that you wouldn't mind them changing the scene where he causes physical pain to one of the Losers by Eddie simply falling through a floor. In the book, Henry breaks his arm as payback for the rock fight. But not just that, Eddie does find courage to take on lost shot at him, telling him he's crazy, just like his father. That in itself is significant.

Speaking of Eddie, yes, he stands up to his mom. But the movie makes another poor diversion from the book by having Eddie's bully tell him his medication is a placebo. In the book, it's Mr. Keene. This is another example of the writer(s) not really getting the source material. Because Mr. Keene is someone who Eddie's trusts. He has no reason to lie to Eddie, in fact, he has his best interests in mind. This isn't the case with the bully, since her opinion would be suspect to begin with.

One more point on Eddie. Yes, we see the leper, and I won't disagree it's a better scene than what we got in the mini series. But this is one of the many surface details that are taken from the book without any idea of why it's in there in the first place. Eddie's leper is based on an earlier encounter with a hobo who makes a sexual advance towards him. The sexual overtones are completely left out, though.

- Yeah, I did watch the movie, so I did notice they were there. But why have most of them keep watch? While the mini series did cut out Neibolt, elements, and straight dialogue, were taken, and simply moved to the sewers encounter at the end of the part 1.

- I think you're taking some of my comments too literally. But even if it wasn't literally the entire summer, that was Bill's prime motivation. Prior to the Losers going to Neibolt, he and Richie even go so far as to bring a gun so Bill can kill It. The others might be slow to join together, but Bill getting his revenge is on his mind fairly early on. And again, the movie differs quite a bit by having Bill presume Georgie is still alive.

- Again, you're only focussing on the surface. Besides Stan literally being described as having the appearance of a little adult, he is symbolically an adult. Unlike all of the other Losers, we never meet his parents in the book (or, as I recall, the mini series). We hear about them, but we never meet them. And I believe it's because of all of the Losers, he's the closest to being removed from adolescence. And where his rationalism comes from.

Also, going back to the movie, why does Stan have his head wrapped if Pennywise's marks aren't visible to the adult eye?

- The final confrontation is a total mess. First, you have the inexcusable decision to turn Beverly, the movie's strongest character, into a damsel in distress. In the mini series, she is active participant, going down to the sewers, and is the one to put Pennywise to his early sumbler. Gone is the symbolism of using the childhood toy slingshot as a weapon against It, instead they use Mike's grandfather's cattle gun. Speaking of Mike, he tries to kill Henry, and it's completely glossed over. Henry, for his part, kills his friends, unlike the mini series which sticks to the book by having them killed by It.

- As for the nitty gritty, yes, characters swear, but why is this a good thing? Richie is far more crass and obnoxious than he is in the book and mini series. I don't remember Richie making jokes about nailing Eddie's mom in the book.

As for Derry, the mini series gave us the better version. First, the Barrens actually look like the Barrens. They're dark, and sinister, unlike the movie's depiction, which seems to consist purely of a quarry. In fact, the Losers hardly spend any time in the Barrens, in contrast to the mini series, which included the dam building plot. The rest of the city is depicted as being sunny, and pleasant looking, with the exception of the house on Neibolt. And I'm not sure we get that much of a different insight to the town than we do with the mini series.

I don't like having to defend the mini series since I'm not a fan, but I reject the notion that the movie is much more faithful to the book. I think they both have their strengths and weaknesses, but neither is vastly superior to the other.

You've just proved my point. Patrick is neither referenced as Patrick, nor is he even used as a protagonist against the Losers, or given any proper screen time with Bowers in the miniseries. Its undeniable that the 2017 movie utilized him more faithfully than the miniseries.

Bowers has a plethora of scenes that make the Losers lives a living hell in the book. Take out the breaking Eddie's arm scene, and he's still every bit as effective a bully. The breaking of Eddie's arm is important because of the effect it has on Eddie as a character, not how it got broken. That's just a plot device.

What difference does it make if its the pharmacist, or his b*tch of a daughter who tells Eddie he's getting placebos? Again this is another case of the effect it has on Eddie, not who it is that told him. The outcome is still the same. Second of all that girl is not a bully of Eddie's. She has a beef with Beverly. Not Eddie. That is the first and only time you see her and Eddie interact in the movie.

No, the leper scene is very much given context since Eddie is paranoid about diseases and germs, and the leper is, in Eddie's very own words like a walking disease. That's what the leper represents to Eddie. A disease ridden infectious person trying to attack him. That was rather obvious.

Neibolt was a very important element of the book with many crucial scenes happening in it, so that was a major missing element from the miniseries. As for why did most of them keep watch, because if things go wrong in there then there is more of them to act to help save those that went in. Again they were being smart.

If you say the whole summer, how many ways is there to take such a comment? Second of all, you are factually wrong. It is not Bill's primary motivation. He doesn't even get that motivation until late in the book after the Losers have all conferred on their encounters with Pennywise, and pieced together what he has been doing. The movie doesn't suffer at all for that because whether Bill thinks Georgie is alive or dead, he still believes Pennywise is responsible for his disappearance and seeks to kill It.

I'm not focusing on the surface, I'm focusing on the facts. We never see Mike's parents in the miniseries either, but he is no more seen as the adult than Stan is. Stan is the skeptic of the Losers. He's the one who tries to bring rationality to an irrational situation, but is forced by the reality of the situation to accept that Pennywise is real.

Who says Pennywise's marks aren't visible to the adult eye? When did the movie state that an injury inflicted by Pennywise is invisible?

The final confrontation is not a mess just because Beverly is taken hostage by Pennywise. In fact Beverly is the character that shows Pennywise's ultimate weakness when he cannot touch her because she is not afraid of him. So he is forced to use his dead lights to subdue her. But he can't kill her. As for Bowers, the movie never shows him killing his friends. So I don't know what you're talking about there. As for Mike trying to kill Henry.....it was blatantly self defense since Bowers was trying to murder him and the others. So what exactly is being glossed over here?

The swearing is a good thing because its an accurate depiction of the kids in the book who swear quite often. Richie is every bit as crass and obnoxious regarding his humor in the book, even going so far as to making jokes about Stan being a jew and how his people killed Jesus Christ. In comparison to making a nailing Eddie's mom joke, which kids make all the time as mom jokes are common as rain with kids.

Your argument that the miniseries gave the better version of Derry is based on the look of the Barrens, and the building the dam sub plot? Ok facts check. First of all the visual look of the barrens isn't even remotely important to the depiction of Derry and how its residents are portrayed, and the whole ignoring of Pennywise. Second of all what is wrong with Derry being depicted as sunny and pleasant looking? Quote me the lines of the book that describe Derry as a dark miserable looking town.

You don't have to defend the miniseries because its the inferior less faithful adaption. No question about it. The only real strength of it is Curry's performance.