N. Needleman wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:The abhorrent current adaptation of Stephen King's IT
Compared to the godawful miniseries, you mean.
As a matter of fact, I think the 1990 miniseries was in every
way superior to the 2017 dreck: not only decidedly more faithful to the fable of the novel (the new one made liberties with the material that were not only stupid, but totally unnecessary - setting the "children half" of the story in the 80's was one such misdemeanor in what can be called the lobotomy of King's work), but also to the soul and spirit of the latter. Moreover, in just scant three hours, it managed to adapt about 80 % of the material, whereas the movie (where only the first part was about 130 minutes long) was too busy jerking around with generic shock scares and planting fluffy Easter eggs ("Oh, looksie, there's the killer car from Christine!" "Wow, how clever!" ...) to bother getting down to the serious storytelling/adapting. In addition, all the old actors were better than the new crowd by some miles. And it managed to be way scarier while working within the confines of the 1990 television - the 2017 version was all about plastic CGI splatter and creature effects that get more laughable by the minute. All of this and I've not even mentioned Tim Curry's iconic villain, worthy of the genre pantheon for all eternity - the new variant will be forgotten by next Christmastime (God, is there even an actor underneath it or just a writhing blob of CGI?).
In short: while the old version might be a bit long in the tooth, its heart is in the right place, whereas the new one is just a phony, heartless attempt to make a buck exploiting the always-reliable King brand and current showbiz trends.
I'm sick and tired of people crapping all over the old version - my bet is about 90 % of those didn't even see it, let alone read the book which it adapts. Oh, right, "the friggin' spider was horrible" ...