MovieChat Forums > IT (2017) Discussion > The one thing I cannot get past

The one thing I cannot get past

posted 8 years ago by raceecho
44 replies | jump to latest

The era change.

To be true, I really do like the direction they are going with this film. I wasn't very keen on Skarsgard as Pennywise at first, specially due to the fact that the promotional poster threw me way off with the costume design, but seeing a recent still from filming, it appears that the still doesn't really reflect how Skarsgard will appear for most of the film.

I don't want to go into this movie not giving him a fair shot to show us his skill as an actor, because everyone thought the same thing when Heath Ledger got cast as the Joker, and look how that turned out. That performance was definitely one of the best of the modern era.

What I can't get past is the timeline difference. I understand that they are trying to reach a broader and most likely a younger audience with this concept, but I feel like they are missing the mark in doing so. Their target audience should really be 24-40, and fans around that age I believe would much rather see a faithful adaptation from the story in that aspect.

When you change the timeline, you completely change the atmosphere of not only the story, but the language, the way the characters interact with each other, and tons of other little nuances that were so fitting to the original novel.

I feel that was a devastating missed opportunity. I know that would have driven up production costs and that they are not on a high budget (considering the story), but I feel like it could have been done. There are tons of towns that still have a very 50's feel to them. I am positive they could have found a location had they really wanted the story to reflect that time period.

Now being set in the 80's, I can see how they may be able to work around that, but having the second act being set in current day? I don't think I could buy into that. The novel is one of if not my favorite works of literature. To change the story in such a way seems to undermine and show a disregard for King's work.

How do you feel about the era change?
Pros? Cons?
How do you think they will manage to pull this off?

[–] CaptainCab 8 years ago

Well, the biggest con is obviously things from the book will be ommited.

The bigest pro is this: the book is so great and believable, because King was writing about his childhood. The filmmakers grew up in the 80s, which is why they updated it for this incarnation. They can tell the story from their childhood perspective, make it personal, and make the movie great and believable in it's own way.

[–] raceecho 8 years ago

Doesn't that in ways defeat the idea of telling the story?

This movie, when it comes down to it, is really fan service. LOTR and Game of Thrones (up til the recent seasons where the show ran past the book) have shown us that some of the most well received films and adaptations of all time are due to the fact that they stuck strictly to the source material, and didn't feel the need to add their own twist on it.

I could see if the story were more on a broad spectrum, but really, it isn't. Like you said, King wrote it about his childhood. King didn't grow up in the 80's. I don't feel they will be able to really reflect his vision in the film, but rather their own interpretation of it.

And I get it, sometimes that is the point of film, but in this case, to what end? I felt like I could really relate to the characters in the novel because they were growing up in a time where everything was more innocent, much like most of our childhoods. The 80's were definitely a feel good time, but it does not have the same feel as the late 50's.

Much of how the characters acted and their interests revolved around that time period. I mean seriously, when people suggest replacing the Hammer Horror icons with people like Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger, I have to laugh, because these are fans that seem far younger than those of us who grew up with the novel, and even in some aspects the mini-series.

I can't see Richie jamming out to White Snake and Motley Crue in his room as opposed to Buddy Holly and Lionel Richie. The moment when Ben sees the Mummy carrying balloons floating against the wind is one of the eeriest scenes in the book, and I don't see that being recreated. Even the parental structure varies from time periods.

None of it really sits right with me.

[–] GuyNCognito 8 years ago

Game of Thrones did not follow the books strictly, my friend.

And I think the time change makes sense on a budget perspective, and it really doesn't change too much. The 80s are regarded as the last decade of the old world.

Grant discovered raptor eggs in Jurassic Park

[–] powellajb 8 years ago

I think the 80s is about as good as it gets as a parallel to the 50s.

Remember, Reagan's platform as a president was to bring America back to the golden era of high growth, high living standards of the 50s. He literally built his entire first presidential campaign on this premise.

I think in IT King was toying with Reagan's ideal by reflecting on the 50s as a truly terrible time for most people bar white males - women were oppressed and segregation still existed in a pretty brutal form.

Now let's think about how our generation perceive the 80s and indeed the baby-boomers. It is seen as the last decade of American prosperity by many, with Reagan at it's helm. In fact it was a strange decade for most Americans as whilst asset holders profited due to skyrocketing house and share prices and the de-regulation of the financial industry, the ordinary man was left behind as the world became more globalised/ jobs moved abroad and wages stayed flat in real terms. In a way there is a space to exploit the idealised memory of the 80s just as King did with the 50s.

In terms of adaptations sticking to their periods - there are lots of great film adaptations which have been moved across culture or periods. Kurosawa's Hamlet, Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet, Rose's Ivan's XTC. All excellent adaptions of great literary works which have been re-imagined in a different era.

If you think IT is a great book, which I'm sure you do, then you will believe the themes are universals. There is a reason we all love a book set in the 50s, even though very few of us grew up then, it's because it's far more about childhood, evil, growing up, living with the past etc. than it is about the 1950s, even if it does provide a good political/ social backdrop for the story.

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 8 years ago

This movie, when it comes down to it, is really fan service. LOTR and Game of Thrones (up til the recent seasons where the show ran past the book) have shown us that some of the most well received films and adaptations of all time are due to the fact that they stuck strictly to the source material, and didn't feel the need to add their own twist on it.

Let's not ignore the fact that there have been plenty of great successful adaptations that didn't follow their sources closely at all.

[–] highway_robbery 8 years ago

I'm glad they've updated the timeline. You mention the target audience should be 24-40, i.e. people who were born well after the 1950s and didn't experience it, which is exactly why it makes sense to me to change it. Personally the 1950s have absolutely no relevance to my life and it's not a period I'm particularly interested in.

The only reason King set the novel during the 50s was because that's when he grew up and he wanted to draw on pop culture references from his own childhood, and obviously the 80s stuff was present day at the point of him writing it. The filmmakers and the majority of the likely audience - especially those who remember the book being published and/or were scared by the mini-series etc - had their own childhoods in the 80s. For those reasons setting the kids stuff in the 80s was a no brainer.

I don't think it changes the atmosphere at all - although the 50s stuff was important to the book, it should be easy to transplant the themes and recreate the atmosphere in any other decade provided you draw on things that suggest nostalia for that time. And for a target audience of 24-40 that's the 1980s. Like you say there's an innocence to the 1950s stuff, but you just focus on things that evoke 80s innnocence/childhood memories instead. So.... cabbage patch kids, Star Wars toys, kids riding choppers and *beep* 80s synth music, rather than the AIDS epidemic and the Cold War.

Personally I'm not bothered about an overly faithful adaptation - I'd rather have a good film that captures the themes or mood to some extent and ends up being a financial success which means Part 2 gets made, and hopefully leads to other (good!) King adaptations. That's not to say you couldn't do a faithful adaptation and have it be successful, but to appeal to the broadest market it makes sense to capitalise on the 80s nostalgia by setting the kids stuff then, so the audience can relate it to their own childhoods. And riff off the sucess of Stranger Things.

I'm more worried about how they'll pull off explaining the history of IT - how tied it is to the events in Derry's past, how it manifests itself, how they show the deadlights (if at all) - really, how they portray IT as a shape-shifting entity not just clown + *beep* spider. Plus the bond between the kids, the casting of the adults, the music and pop culture references working - all those are more important to me than a 50s setting.

[–] animaniac1 8 years ago

I agree with EVERYTHING you said OP. Ever since the remake was announced with an updated timeline, it was the most frustrating thing to hear. The innocence of the 1950's is what really made so much of the acts Pennywise commited that much more disturbing. And that was the time of the rise of all those classic horror movies like you said. The idea of Pennywise taking the forms of Jason, Freddy and Michael, while taunting the kids in the 80's, just wouldn't have the same effect. And when he comes back during present day with modern technology I just don't see how it will feel as authentic as the book setting. I'm gonna be very open minded with this but... I'm hesitant.

[–] cjbark-34442 8 years ago

Your right. For IT to take the form of Jason, Freddy Krueger etc, would be banal, even compared to the different timeline from the book to this film adaption. At least we get the dead kids, Pennywise (of coarse) and the leper - they are totally original.

"That's it. It bit into his arm-pit. Like It wanted to eat him, man. Like It wanted to eat his heart."

[–] patrickBOOTH 8 years ago

I am a child of the 90's, however a bit of a young fogey so I definitely feel for the children of the 50's naivety and somewhat corny speech patterns and colloquialisms. There is something oddly endearing about it reading the language in the book. I still have an open mind.

The biggest thing that I fear is based on some things I think producers said, which is it will have a "Goonies" type feel to the children's interactions and there were even things said like "If you liked Stranger Things you will like IT." Stranger Things was a great series with some nice nods to this novel, and the Goonies was fun, but the children's interactions verge on silly, and fearless. While there are aspects of that in IT I hope they don't make the children these overly-confident, fearless, "Let's kick IT's ass!" gang right from the start. This film needs to let that looming terror that you can't put your finger on brew.

All of this said, I still have an open mind and honestly I am just happy we get another interpretation of IT, regardless how it turns out.

[–] cjbark-34442 8 years ago

About that "bravery" thing. Yep. Let's say, for the Loser's to go into the dark sewers as kids - they're bravery to do this shouldn't peak overnight. They have to find each other for companionship and mutual support first. Let's face it. Would you go down there if you weren't strong and fully confident? Sh#t no.

"That's it. It bit into his arm-pit. Like It wanted to eat him, man. Like It wanted to eat his heart."

[–] stugood-07006 8 years ago

TOTALLY agree. If the lucky seven walk up to Neibolt Street with badass moves and a cock-rock song playing it'll all be over.

[–] t3cii-1 8 years ago

While I'd rather the movie(s) kept to the novel in terms of time line, I can see why they updated it to the 80s/present day. It's one thing to have a movie be set in 1958, but to have another be set in 1985, you're essentially going to be having two movies in which most of your audience won't have even been have been alive. Which is why I disagree with your point that the target audience should be 24-40 year olds. You're not thinking of this in terms of marketing. I think the people who would be going to this would probably be younger.

[–] MachoManRandySavage 8 years ago

I grew up in the 80's and went to the library, had to watch out for bullies, rode my bike, played in the woods, played in a creek, explored sewers while being afraid of legendary boogeymen, searched out houses thought to be haunted and dared to enter...these things are timeless.

The 80's kids were still without internet and cell phones and things like that. It's not a radically different time.

[–] ThulsaDoom88 8 years ago

I've said as much before. I did alot of the things they did in the novel and I was born in 88! You hit the nail on the head when you say things like that are timeless, because they are.

~Stop Now Before I Kill You All.A Word To The Wise From Your Friend Pennywise~

[–] Occult_Detective 8 years ago

I had a problem with the change in timeline before. But because this has been the talk for the plot of the film for years while it was in development Hell for so many years, I've had time to let it sink in. After seeing production photos, it's really grown on me.

Sure, I'll miss some of the references from the book, because I'm a huge fan of the 1950's (most of my ipod is oldies music!) But like I always say, it's not as if the film is going to suddenly change the book. Stephen King isn't going to pull a George Lucas and go back to change the timeline of his story. So no matter how the movie turns out, I'll always have my copy of the book to pull out and read as I please, as we all will.

Overall though, all adaptations will have changes from the material and I'm okay with most of them so far. At least they didn't put the kids in modern time and plan to set the 2nd part for 30 years in the future or something, that would have been a change I don't think I could have gotten behind.

"Stay Bloody!" - Seth from Blood Puddle Reviews

[–] bobbiekaye69 8 years ago

I was born in 1975, and in the 1980s, did a lot of those same things.

But I never saw racism of the Bowers kind. Some of my classmates were black, and a lot were Latino, but nobody thought much about it.

But we were aware of Child Protective Services, and saw a couple of kids we knew rescued from abusive situations.

I think in the 1980s, CPS would've been frequent visitors to the Bowers place, and probably would've had an eye on Bevvie's father.

I agree with the OP that the 1950s would've been better for this film.

I intend to live forever.
So far, so good.

[–] DoubleDareYa 8 years ago

I think in the 1980s, CPS would've been frequent visitors to the Bowers place, and probably would've had an eye on Bevvie's father.

Ahh, but hence the genius of making Butch Bowers a cop. Also, I think the 'Derry disease' would nip any involvement by CPS in the bud.

[–] t3cii-1 8 years ago

I grew up in the 80's and went to the library, had to watch out for bullies, rode my bike, played in the woods, played in a creek, explored sewers while being afraid of legendary boogeymen, searched out houses thought to be haunted and dared to enter...these things are timeless.

I don't think they are timeless. Certainly not in today's day and age. Most kids either aren't allowed that much independence, or they have their free time scheduled out by their parents.

[–] SlickySlixta 8 years ago

I grew up in the 80's and went to the library, had to watch out for bullies, rode my bike, played in the woods, played in a creek, explored sewers while being afraid of legendary boogeymen, searched out houses thought to be haunted and dared to enter...these things are timeless.

I was born in 87 and did all those 'sense of wonder' things you do as a kid. I remember seeing the IT miniseries in 1996 and then after I watched it I made a boat and let it float down the street in the gutter. I remember how eerie it felt because our street at the time had a house at the end who's resident's were a little on the recluse side and some of my childhood friends used to make up these outlandish theories about them to scare each other, lol. There was also a storm drain right at the end near there house so once that paper boat got close to the drain I remember picking it up and running away because I didn't want to be anywhere near perceived dangers, haha.

Strangely enough, I've been back to the street I grew up on and it's all redeveloped now and the vacant paddock that surrounded our street has become a modern housing estate. I had a bit of a sentimental moment much like the grown ups in IT did, lol.

Don't put the devil in the picture, cause' the religious groups won't wanna see it.

[–] bossdog677 8 years ago

Yet most of the people on this board claim that this is a better adaption of the book than the mini series but will likey have the kids playing Mario Brothers and watching MTV

[–] bossdog677 8 years ago

You tell these idiots that this movie is going to suck and they rant about how it's more faithful to the book

Then you point out how indeed it is not more faithful to the book and they make excuses to justify such drastic changes

You people are pathetic

[–] agusmaga93 8 years ago

Nobody knows how this will turn out until they watch the movie. Unless they have a time machine like you do.

[–] t3cii-1 8 years ago

So fuc# off.

[–] jane_c-14760 8 years ago

So why are you here? You've spoken your mind, we've all heard your opinion. Yet you keep coming back to this message board to tell us how the movie will suck and how stupid we all are time and time again. When I heard they were making a new ghostbusters movie with an all female cast I thought that sounds *beep* I'm not going to waste my time or money on that load of bollocks. What I didn't do was troll the message board and disrespect those who were looking forward to it. If you think it looks *beep* and you have no interest in the movie why don't you *beep* off and put all your energy into something you do like. You're the one who comes across as pathetic, you have nothing better to do with your life than troll message boards. Maybe you're right and the movie will suck, but none of us know 100% that it will until we've actually seen it. Yes some parts have been changed, but they seem to be adding more things from the novel, things that didn't make it into the mini-series, hence why fans of the novel are excited.