Current Events > Which It version was mlre faithful to the book?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Or are they both totally different? Should I read the book since I already know the story from the two movies?
---

I mean, there's never been a time King has actually stepped in and cared about who he sold movie rights to, however I'd say that both adaptations were acceptable, tossing out what could obviously never touch screen, even then, especially now.

There's definitely more in the book, I wouldn't call it a timeless classic, but it's far from unreadable.
---

The first was more faithful to the book. The second was a better movie. The second mainly paid homage to parts of the book instead of completely recreating scenes.
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

The first was more faithful to the book. The second was a better movie. The second mainly paid homage to parts of the book instead of completely recreating scenes.

From someone who's never read the book the second was def not better than the first.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lh09BWbynV0
---

The book is going to be different enough from the movie that there'll be new stuff. It's an 1100 page book with a lotta weird shit in it. They won't be adapting everything (and I'm not just talking about the gangbang).
---

First one receeated scenes bit didnt have the essence and feel of he book, plus pennywise was not the book pennywise.

New movie changes stories and events but has the essence and heart of the book.
---

Dont read the book unless you're Jared Fogle.
---

Chicken posted...

Dont read the book unless you're Jared Fogle.

Lmao, figured someone would make this joke.
---

Btw, this is a great video showing differences between the miniseries, 2017 remake, and the book. (Mostly just the miniseries and book though.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alp_a88C8dY

It basically shows that the miniseries and remake are faithful in different ways to the book while also taking their own liberties.
---

Miniseries did a lot of stuff right, but the book was never that great to begin with because lol the spider.
---

AdmittedFelon posted...

but the book was never that great to begin with because lol the spider.

You clearly didn't read it since it wasn't lol spider like in the miniseries. Yeah it had that kind of form, not exactly like a spider even, and there was loads more to the battle than hacking a spider to bits with bare hands
---

Godnorgosh posted...

Chicken posted...

Dont read the book unless you're Jared Fogle.

I think that that scene, despite containing sexual content, wasn't intended to be sexually arousing. It's a weird scene, but when you approach it rationally, what else would you do if you wanted to form as strong a connection with your buddies as possible to keep It from winning? What makes the scene interesting is that it's about survival, but the method of survival also happens to be conducive to forging an even more powerful bond between the Losers. And they needed all the power they could muster to defeat It.

There's no rationality in that scene. Its simply the product of a fucked up mind made even more fucked up by lots and lots of coke.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

Chicken posted...

Dont read the book unless you're Jared Fogle.

I think that that scene, despite containing sexual content, wasn't intended to be sexually arousing. It's a weird scene, but when you approach it rationally, what else would you do if you wanted to form as strong a connection with your buddies as possible to keep It from winning? What makes the scene interesting is that it's about survival, but the method of survival also happens to be conducive to forging an even more powerful bond between the Losers. And they needed all the power they could muster to defeat It.

You can rationalize it to make sense, but truth is King could've come up with different methods of strengthening their bond so it wouldn't be so weird.
---