Quoted from Warren Not sure if this is in response to what I said but just to be clear, I don’t think that scene needed to be in the film, I'm not sure it even needed to be in the book. BOOK SPOILERS – maybe I meant more of Patrick Hockstetters scenes, that was some creepy shit. Also a slightly more developed relationship between Beverly and her father, especially the chase scene between the two of them. The door into It’s lair would have been a nice touch as well and some of It’s other kills that are written as interludes in the book. I also do kind of wish they kept the original time period. Other than that, not much to complain about.

I disagree about the original time period. I'm glad they changed it, it's going to be very interesting to see the adults story in 2016. Can't wait to see how it'll all play out. And I understand why they did that as well. The original time period 27 years later, matched up to when the book/miniseries came out. With this new version, it needed an update.

Everyone understands why they did it, it's all over the internet. Still think the 50s would have been better. Makes it creepier in my mind for some reason. And I think moving the timeline forward adds nothing at all to the story other than being able to say that 27 years ago... blah, blah, blah, who cares.

You also said you couldn't get through the book so how do you know it needs an update? Unless you mean based on the original series, well then obviously that is dated, but I still think the 50s would have been better. I'm interested to hear what other book readers think.

Quoted from Warren Everyone understands why they did it, it's all over the internet. Still think the 50s would have been better. Makes it creepier in my mind for some reason. And I think moving the timeline forward adds nothing at all to the story other than being able to say that 27 years ago... blah, blah, blah, who cares. You also said you couldn't get through the book so how do you know it needs an update?

I was referring to the timeline when I said it needed an update lol... and yeah you're right, it doesn't make a difference or add nothing to the story. So it being set in the 50s still, IMO, does nothing, so I liked that they moved it forward.  

Quoted from Warren Everyone understands why they did it, it's all over the internet. Still think the 50s would have been better. Makes it creepier in my mind for some reason. And I think moving the timeline forward adds nothing at all to the story other than being able to say that 27 years ago... blah, blah, blah, who cares. You also said you couldn't get through the book so how do you know it needs an update? Unless you mean based on the original series, well then obviously that is dated, but I still think the 50s would have been better. I'm interested to hear what other book readers think.

Yep I'm gonna sit this one out until a proper version is done - a mini series of 8 to 10 episodes is needed to do the book justice, and keeping it in the 50's/80's as in the book. No cutting of any major scenes as well.

Perps who are new to IT need to know that IT isn't just Pennywise, a creepy old clown. IT is Frankenstein, the Wolfman, Dracula, Rodan, The Creeping Eye, The Fly, Jaws, etc. The manifestation of your deepest fears which IT feeds on.

The Lord of the Rings also needs to be done as a gritty mini series as well, ala GOT as the Jackson films while very good, are marred by the Hollywood popcorn treatment

Quoted from stevie Yep I'm gonna sit this one out until a proper version is done - a mini series of 8 to 10 episodes is needed to do the book justice, and keeping it in the 50's/80's as in the book. No cutting of any major scenes as well. Perps who are new to IT need to know that IT isn't just Pennywise, a creepy old clown. IT is Frankenstein, the Wolfman, Dracula, Rodan, The Creeping Eye, The Fly, Jaws, etc. The manifestation of your deepest fears which IT feeds on. The Lord of the Rings also needs to be done as a gritty mini series as well, ala GOT as the Jackson films while very good, are marred by the Hollywood popcorn treatment

IT isn't just a clown in the new movie, fyi. Just saying. And what's the big deal with keeping it in the 50/80s? What's that have to do with anything? And in all honesty, if you're waiting for a movie (any movie) to be a word for word straight up adaptation of its original work, you'll be waiting for the rest of your life, because no movie/series ever is... and why should it be? You need to bring SOMETHING new to it, in order to stay fresh/be surprised.

In the book it has everything to do with everything, it's a big part of how the kids interact with their parents, and how the Bower's gang interacts with the losers club, especially Mike. They left most of that out of the movie so it doesn't matter in the sense that you are saying. It matters because personally I think for lovers of the book, something more true to the book would have been nice.

That doesn't mean they did a bad job, it is a great adaptation. I just personally feel, and I think anyone who has read the book will agree, that keeping the original time would have been better as a whole.

Quoted from Warren In the books it has everything to do with everything, it's a big part of how the kids interact with their parents, and how the Bower's gang interacts with the losers club, especially Mike. They left most of that out of the movie so it doesn't matter in the sense that you are saying. It matters because personally I think for lovers of the book, something more true to the book would have been nice. That doesn't mean they did a bad job, it is a great adaptation. I just personally feel, and I think anyone who has read the book will agree, that keeping the original time would have been better as a whole.

I've talked to a ton of people that have read and loved the book, as well as the movie, and not one of them have said anything about the timeline change. But to each their own

Quoted from Warren I just personally feel

Yeah that's what I said.

Saw it last night. Never read the book or saw the Tim Curry version. One word: Terrifying. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. The acting and story were great. The kids reminded me of Stand By Me. Beverly gave me Molly Ringwald/Suzanne Vega/Adrienne King vibes. The vintage movie posters and theater marquees (all Warner and/or New Line titles) was a nice touch.

The cinematography was top notch, among the best digital I've seen (and this is coming from a guy who gets giddy over film capture and/or projection). Bill Skarsgård gave a top shelf performance as Pennywise. Of course, I can't rank Tim Curry's performance (a great actor in his own right), but being a fan of that era of horror, Skarsgard probably nailed it.

This adaptation certainly lives up to the hype. A+

Saw It the other day. I was more or less pleased. The original was stupid as fuck (Tim Curry's performance notwithstanding) so I never felt like the new one had that much of a high bar to reach. I loved the characters and performance and the willingness to put children in so much peril without softening the blow. Think the majority of issues either existed in the book and original film or were basically an over-reliance on cheap, conventional horror tactics. Issues plenty of other films have these days. Overall I think there was enough I liked where I wasn't bothered too much.

Saw it today.

Didn't like the 1990 version and didn't like this one as well.

It was OK. Zero scares for me. Ultimately even the kids in the film weren't scared of it, so it's a pretty hard sell to maintain tension when the kids have learnt from point dot that they're more powerful than the enemy.

In my opinion they showed the clown too much. He appeared so often it lost any hope of being frightening. Horror only works when it's unknown Imo. Once revealed all horror dissipates.. It's always just a guy in a suit. They threw the kitchen sink at it trying to make it a little frightening, but it's expectation that is creepy, not the thing itself.

Structurally, I think it would have been better if we'd seen some more kills. Following the main kids all the time gave them an air of invincibility and nerfed any threat from Pennywise. The book didn't have this problem. The threat was constant. Here the film seems to do everything it can to keep the kids alive.

I also felt that I'd seen the film before on Netflix : it was so close to Stranger things, even in terms of casting that I felt I was watching a remake for the first hour.

Great cinematography and production value, but a miss as a horror. It was a fun, Goonies style movie, though.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Structurally, I think it would have been better if we'd seen some more kills.

The first half of the movie feels like a series of five-six sequences that could pass for individual short films that are tied together just to show off creative scares that aren't even that scary. This is one thing I never like about big budget action/thriller movies, when there's a feeling that the writers sat down and brainstormed individual action sequences/scenes that don't flow together like one whole story in the end but feel like very separate chunks.

The movie did have good cinematography and production values, that I agree with. And the kids were good. However it was predictable, cliche, wasn't scary and didn't flow for me. Made a shit-load of money though, so good for them.

I'm just throwing this out here, but just to clarify, IT (2017) is not a remake of the 1990 "film". Just thought I'd bring it up since I'm a little nitpick. But IT 2017 is simply another adaptation of the novel... again, not a remake. in fact, the 1990 "film" wasn't even a film at all, it was a miniseries. Just throwing that out there. :p

I doubt there's anyone in the world that doesn't know it was a book.