why 1989? - It (2017) Discussion

[–] GhostHeart (24) 7 years ago

Well, the original setting for the novel would have been 1956, if we're talking about the children, and 1960 in the miniseries, again, for the children. They set this version in 1989 so it'd be able to capture some of the 80's feelings and nostalgia movies always try to seem to get, and so 27 years later it'd be around 2016, which is sufficiently up to date that I doubt people in 2019 will be concerned it's 3 years behind current time.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Because hollywood thinks the masses are so freakin' dumb they can't "relate" to a movie unless it takes place RIGHT NOW.

reply

[–] bobbydallas (8059) 7 years ago

The 80s setting definitely fell flat. Why did they show Bill & Georgie using walkie-talkies in the opening and then they, what, disappeared? I also didn't care that the kids were walking around with walk-mans and New Kids on the Block T-shirts. Sorry writers/producers this decade change didn't add anything to the film..

reply

[–] need2burn (1) 7 years ago

Didn't one of them mention they were going to play Street Fighter all summer? That means it would have to be the original, which is a terrible game. Certainly didn't make me nostalgic. Good catch on the walkie talkie, I thought for sure that would play a role like Pennywise would taunt Bill.

reply

[–] WandererFromYs (1675) 7 years ago

In case you missed it, Richie was playing Street Fighter 1 in the arcade when Bill went to get him.

And yes it's a terrible reference. No one played fighting games until Street Fighter 2.

reply

[–] robv60 (4) 7 years ago

I swear when Bill was chasing after Georgie in the sewers that I heard a brief squawk of a walkie-talkie.

reply

[–] whynotwriteme (7121) 7 years ago

They should have kept the 1950s setting of the novel. It would have been way more interesting.

reply

[–] Reaperscout (582) 7 years ago

I would've liked it to stick to the 1950's also, but after what Stephen King said, I don't mind. Stephen King approved of the change in decade. All he cared about was that the plot stuck to the story he was trying to tell in his novel. Mostly with themes and the book's messages and all that. So if Stephen King approves, then I'll accept the change. Plus it still felt like I was was watching the book come to life on the big screen and follow the book's overall plot with some obvious changes. So I can see what Stephen King was talking about. It's no big deal overall to me, but it would've been nice to stick to the 1950's.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

In the book, the setting for the Losers adult fight against it is set in the present day, and the book was written in 1986 (if I recall correctly), and the book also covers the Losers as children 27 years previously, which at the time was the 1950s. It's like people who read the book then were old enough to be nostalgic for that time, so as the decades go by, to be relevant to today's audiences, the timelines have to shift decades too. That's how I can best describe it.

Put it this way: in the book, IT took the form of The Creature from the Black Lagoon (correct me if I'm wrong), so book readers back then would remember that famous movie monster. But these days? For people in this day and age, nostalgic about 27 years ago, it would've been the late 1980s, so people remember Nightmare on Elm Street and the movie monsters of that time.

See my point? I bet if they adapted IT once more, 50 years from now, it would have to portray that time and 27 years before it, and that time hasn't even come yet! Who knows what the culture of the time might be then?

reply

[–] robv60 (4) 7 years ago

Exactly.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6923) 7 years ago

Because Stranger Things, which is set in the early 1980s, is what renewed a lot of people's love of everything 80s and Stephen King as a pair, rather than as two separate things - and probably contributed to this re-adaptation getting the go ahead to be made. I can even see it being pitched to studio execs like so 'look, Stranger Things is popular, we'll just do that with IT, everyone will eat it up!' - and that's pretty much the truth.

reply

[–] DracTarashV2 (4475) 7 years ago

While "It" can no doubt owe some of its success to the popularity of Stranger Things, it's very unlikely the filmmakers of "It" decided to set the film in the 80's in order to capitalize on Stranger Things' success. The reason I say that is because "It" began filming a month before Stranger Things was even released...

80's nostalgia is definitely in right now (Stranger Things certainly has something to do with that), but it was simply the right decision to set this film in that decade. As another poster put it, audiences in the 80's were nostalgic for the 50's, and now 30 years later? It's the 80's people are missing. Not forgetting the fact that King grew up in the 50's, but setting this modern adaption in a decade current audiences are fond of makes sense. Plus, in the original the Losers Club as adults were living in the present day, which was the 1980's. We're going to see The Losers Club from this adaption in (maybe) 2019, so if you ask me, it all fits.

reply

[–] Reaperscout (582) 7 years ago

I also hate the argument that they "supposedly" purposely cast the main kid from Stranger Things in IT because of Stranger Things' success. The kid was already filming IT when ST was released and before ST blew up in popularity. WB and Netflix didn't have this all planned out and new ahead of time that ST would be popular and that they needed to cast the main kid in IT also to get butts in seats. But even if they did do this on purpose, they'd probably cast the ST kid as Bill instead of Richie since Bill is the leader and the kid from ST played the leader of the group in ST. The kid probably auditioned for IT while filming Stranger Things and when he was filming. He then got the part and started probably immediately after filming wrapped for Season 1 of Stranger Things. There was no time to wait to see how Stranger Things did and go from there.

And with the 80's setting, since they were already filming IT, they were probably too far into filming to change the setting to the 80's from the 50's. They'd probably have too many scenes to reshoot, although there are scenes that don't really scream 80's in the movie and could be set in the 50's.

reply

[–] WandererFromYs (1675) 7 years ago

The 50s setting wasn't about the target audience, it was just another example is Stephen King writing about what he knows. He was born in 47, so he was around the same age as the. Characters in the book at the same time. I don't really have a problem with the time period being changed because there wasn't much about the story that was really rooted in the 50s. Besides Richies love of monster movies.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

why that year as opposed to setting it 1985 (present day setting of the novel) or 1986 (novels release) or 1990 (the tv miniseries) or even later in 1992 (so would tie in with Chapter 2s actual release year 27 years later in 2019)

Its arbitrary. Had it been set in 1992 you'd be asking why not 1989.

reply