- Joined
- Apr 15, 2007
- Messages
- 25,674
- Reaction score
- 8,693
I agree that it's far too massive a novel to adapt "properly" in any cinematic form. A long TV mini series on an appropriate outlet like HBO would have been a dream come true, but thats not what we got so I have to judge it on the merits of the film. We can go through and point to all sorts of good scenes from the novel that werent the film, but thats not a criticism of the film since by design it has to exclude so much. We have judge it based on what it chose to do, and not something that it could have done unless theres an obvious improvement. Selected scenes are cool, but they arent necessary to make a proper adaptation.
While I will always lament that Bowers and the gang will never get their due in any cinematic adaptation, I also realize that in a proper page to screen process means that is going to be one of the first things to hit the cutting room floor. They're secondary characters and, as such, cant be given an equal amount of screen time as the protagonists and the antagonist. It sucks because in the novel, you could literally just take the story of the losers club and the Bowers gang and make a fantastic book. But its not possible in a movie.
Theres 3 ways to judge it. As an adaptation, as a horror movie, and as a film. It works as all 3, but in varying degrees. First and foremost, it succeeds as a horror movie. We can sit here and dissect the minutia of what we personally like or dont like all day long, but at that point you're having a completely subjective argument and its rather meaningless. But think of it this way, if we didn't have the novel to color our expectations and this was an original creation, would the film be better or worse? I think most people would agree it would be far better, because we arent missing the depth and layers that the novel so willingly offers. But there comes a point where something is successful enough and people are enjoying it enough that its obviously working for most of them. IT sailed past that marker when it absolutely crushed its second weekend box office, thoroughly clobbering the comparatively star studded Mother from Aaronovsky.
On it's own, without expectations and eventual disappointments because of them, it's one of the best horror movies in years. Certainly the best one put out as any major release in likely over a decade. I cant even think of the last big budget, studio horror movie that works as well as this one. Even on triple the budget and all the A list talent, Alien:Covenant doesnt even come close to working as effectively as a horror film despite its desire to "return to its horror roots".
As a film, by virtue of it succeeding so well as a horror movie, it also earns praise. Even if you dissect the craftsmanship of the film, it's pretty inspiring work. Not just in Muschiettis impressive control of the style and tone, but in just how amazingly they managed stretch a relatively minuscule budget. For the sake of comparison, realize that the aforementioned Mother actually had practically the same budget. If someone had told viewers of the movie that it had a 100 million dollar budget, there would be very few doubters imo. It's nothing short of amazing what was done with the money that was spent, and the creators and team behind the miserable adaptation of The Dark Tower should be hanging their heads in shame.
Finally how do you judge it as an adaptation? Thats most subjective avenue and the hardest to judge. If judging an adaptation relies merely on how successfully it transfers the page to the screen as accurately as possible, IT fails miserably. However, as Stephen Spielberg has proven time and time again with adaptations like Jaws, Jurassic Park, and what Kubrick showed with what many believe is the best King horror adaptation of all time with The Shining, is that a literal page to screen adaptation isnt necessary not only to succeed, but to become a classic. Only time will tell if thats in store for IT, but thats certainly not an impossibility. This is going to be the movie that all sorts of teenagers think is the scariest shit ever, and then their old fart Dad is gonna say "Oh, you think THAT was scary..." and then put in a 1991 mini series from ABC , thinking the kids are going to get their minds blown while they sit through the first scene wondering what the hell their insane father is taking about. Nostalgia is a killer.
For me personally, the best way to judge an adaptation is how well it captures the spirit and feel of its source material for people unfamiliar with it. How is the movie resonating with people that don't have the novel to compare it to? For the most part, its overwhelming praise.
It certainly isnt a perfect movie, or a perfect adaptation. But I think it would be hard to argue that Muschietti and the studio havent done on incredible job at a task that many thought impossible.
Last edited:
