So I noticed in a ton of the responses that they are mainly citing the turn from 1958 to 1989, which I said previously that I thought could be worked around. The scariest change is from 1985 to the present day. The world was a vast different place in those respective time periods. I can't even begin to understand how they will translate such a dramatic difference if they get green-lit for part 2.
I do understand that some elements are timeless, but the feel of the story will change without a doubt. Even in adaptations of other works that have changed the time period, there is still usually a significantly different presence in the story-telling and mood of the film.
Most people who don't mind the time line change or even support it tend to mention that they grew up in the 80's and think that the difference will be an enjoyable one, yet when we all read the book, we fell in love with characters from a different era. The 50's and 80's are entirely different in many different respects, and I think that will reflect majorly in the film.
Racism won't be an issue like it was in the 50's. Henry and the Bowers Gang probably won't be greasers. Richie won't like the same bands, or even the same style of music most likely. Alvin Marsh's behavior will be far less believable. The way they talk to one and other will be vastly different. Ben's father being in the war won't make any sense and will probably have his entire background story changed. None of the Hammer Horror references will have a place here because they weren't "scary" in the 80's. Major scenes from the book will be drastically different or entirely excluded because of this like Victor and Belch having their heads swiped off by Frankenstein, Ben seeing the Mummy with balloons floating against the wind (totally eerie scene that I would love to see brought to life), the kids fighting the werewolf (at least once on Neibolt Street).
None of that bodes well for people who are looking for a faithful adaptation. Sure, story elements that are universal can be used, but some will not fit in the 80's, thus changing the mood of the film.
PS.
To the guy who said Game of Thrones didn't stick strictly to the source material, I'll admit they took some liberties and omitted some stories, but the vast majority of the series was as it was in the books. The only notable difference that changes the story line I can think of off hand is Ramsay actually marrying Sansa and not Jeyne Pool, and in turn Robb marrying Talisa, who was never in the original text. The major plot points have remained the same, so far as I recall. Forgive me if I am forgetting some, it's been over a year or two since I read Dances with Dragons.
reply
share
patrickBOOTH
8 years ago
I have said it before and I will say it again. The monsters are really irrelevant. If they can't reproduce the "feel" of this novel it is pointless. The novel isn't about what monster you see, or even specific scenes that happen the novel is about friendship, fears of the unknown, humanity, growing older. Ultimately this novel has this sense of impending doom, a real foreboding of things to come, a real eerie way of not knowing what is happening and where things are going. This will make a great film. Not reproducing creatures that have been done to death over the past 30 years. Recreating the spirit of the novel is most important and nothing we can see on the internet, or read in forums will tell us if they do this until we see it.
reply
share
raceecho
8 years ago
My response wasn't only about the other forms of It. There are still other story elements that played a significant role that will likely have to change in order to fit the era. That was what I am trying to say.
reply
share
agusmaga93
8 years ago
The 1980s timeline in the book left it pretty clear that things such as racism and homophobia are still present in Derry because of It. If It wants Derry to be full of homophobes and racists in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and even 2010s, then so there will. And I don't know how Alvin's behaviour would change since domestic abuse is, sadly, a pretty common issue nowadays and since always. As long as this movie respects the plot and spirit of the book, I'll be happy with it.
reply
share
Harry_Roat_Jr
8 years ago
Plus the story has the built in explanation: Derry is bad. It can be a more racist town than most of its time and place because of the influence of It. That point was even made in the Adrian Mellon chapter where Don Hagarty said essentially: "I've seen vicious homophobia before, but nothing like this."
reply
share
patrickBOOTH
8 years ago
I recently read The Bonfire of the Vanities, which was written and set in the 80's. It is amazing how pretty much nothing has changed today.
reply
share