MovieChat Forums > It Discussion > Sorry, but the 2017 one is way better

Sorry, but the 2017 one is way better


Although there are still some stuff from the early 90s miniseries that I liked. For one, the early 60s setting is way more nostalgic than the late 80s setting from the newer one. However, the newer film was better with everything else except Pennywise's appearance. The bullies were given better depth, despite still being demented psychopaths, much like the novel and the miniseries. But overall, IT: Chapter One (2017) > It (1990). The child actors are about on par, but the 2017 cast is slightly better. I still prefer 1960 Bev to 1989 Bev, though.

reply

INCOMPATABLE COMPARISON...THE ORIGINAL IT MINISERIES COVERED THE ENTIRE BOOK FOR A TELEVISION AUDIENCE.THE NEW VERSIONS ARE BIG BUDGET THEATER RELEASES,TWO OF THEM,SPLITTING THE STORY UP AND MAKING IT MORE PALATABLE.

reply

All that may be true, but I wouldn't say it's an "incompatible comparison." Both productions tell a complete story based on the same book, so comparison's are inevitable. People are going to choose sides and decide what adaptation they think is superior.

reply

THE MINI SERIES WAS MADE WITH
DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS.ASA 90S MINISERIES.THERE IS NO WAY IT COULD COMPETE WITH A BLOCKBUSTER FILM HEAVILY FINANCED 30 YEARS LATER.I GET THAT ITS THE SAME SOURCE MATERIAL.I THINK THE DIFFERENT SCALES OF PRODUCTIONS IS A MAJOR ASTERISK ON ANY COMPARISON THOUGH.

reply

First off, would it be too much not to type in ALL CAPS and to put some spaces after your periods? It would make your posts a lot more readable.

Second, sure, you make some good points. Generally speaking, a theatrical film will typically be of higher quality than an old TV production.

With that said though, I think there are multiple examples that show that more money does not always equal a more entertaining or more interesting end result.

For instance, one of my favorite mini-series of all time is the 1999 Joan of Arc mini-series with Leelee Sobieski. Despite being made for television, it's my favorite screen production of the Joan of Arc story, and I think it's much better than The Messenger, which went to theaters.

TNT's 1999 made-for-TV adaptation of A Christmas Carol with Patrick Stewart is also one of my top 3 renditions of Dickens's book.

And I would much rather watch the 1998 Merlin mini-series with Sam Neill than I would the 2004 King Arthur film with Clive Owen.

So it all depends.

reply

IT HELPS THAT THE MESSENGER,KING ARTHUR AND EVERY VERSION OF A CHRISTMAS CAROL SINCE THE 50S ARE ALL BORDERLINE TERRIBLE FILMS.THE PROBLEM WITH 1990 "IT" LIES ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE ADULT HALF.THE KID HALF IS PHENOMENAL.AS FOIR MY CAPS.NO OFFENSE,BUT 20 YEARS OF CHATTING IN CAPS HAS LEFT ME STUBBORN IN MY TRADITION AND SHORT FUSED WITH THE "YELLING" OR "HARD TO READ" COMMENTS.

reply

I respect your opinion, but I don't agree. I was very open to the new IT films and I didn't go in saying "this better be exactly like the miniseries or else!" because, let's face it, the miniseries is heavily flawed. However, I don't think the new films are good, even putting aside comparisons to the former.

The child actors are wasted and, imo, kind of odd. Their stories lack substance, which makes no sense for such a long film. The story is absent of any subtlety, which is why the new film feels too over the top to be scary. And the clown isn't the central villain, so I often found myself asking - would this be a better film without Pennywise? And the answer is yes. Which kind of renders the movies pointless.

As for comparison to the old miniseries, I think that the campiness works for laughs - because, let's face it, the experimental nature of 90s TV was a hoot. However, the new films don't really have this to lean on and I don't see myself revisiting these films. And there are truly iconic scenes in the 90s miniseries. The washing line and the red bike. Pennywise in the shower. The use of the flipping and bleeding photo albums. The use of balloons throughout. Those really stand out to me. Nothing like that in the new films. They recreated, but in a less engaging way.

reply