Never Retallack | Entertainment Editor

Remakes — they have been all the rage within the past few years. Consider all of these: Disney reanimations, “Ghostbusters,” “Men in Black,” “Oceans 8” and more. With the recent release of Stephen King’s “It: Chapter 2,” I decided to rewatch the 1990 version to see how the original and newer version contrast.

The original “It” adapted from Stephen King’s novel of the same name was a horror miniseries directed by Tommy Lee Wallace and written by Lawrence D. Cohen. 

According to IMDB, Wallace and Cohen originally planned for it to be a four-part, eight-hour series, but with ABC’s time limitations Cohen condensed the 1,138 page novel into a mini-series of about three hours in length. That is one large difference between the original and the new version — the amount of time dedicated to the story. The newer version of “It,” released in 2017, and “It: Chapter 2,” released in 2019, directed by Andy Muschietti and written by Gary Dauberman, are both nearly three hours in length. I believe having the extra screen time allowed Dauberman to fit more content into the film than Cohen was able to.

For those that have not seen the film or read Stephen King’s novel, “It” tells the tale of an interdimensional monster disguised as a clown named Pennywise. He terrorizes seven children in the town of Derry, Maine. This flesh-eating clown uses his powers to manipulate the children, using their fears against them while they try to stop him from killing other children in their town or themselves.

In the 1990 version, the audience first meets the main characters as adults; throughout the first half of the movie, flashbacks show the children fighting Pennywise. 

In Dauberman’s 2017 “It” film, he focuses on the seven main characters as children. In the 2019 version they are reunited as adults, with occasional scenes showing them as children. 

The different timelines in the original and new version create different paces for the films; the original feels fast paced, almost rushing to give the audience the necessary details to understand the story. 

I think having two three-hour films allowed the audience to get to know the characters better and fully grasp the complexity of King’s story. 

Western senior, majoring in Interdisciplinary Studies, Emily Hedges said, “The newer film’s plot was much easier to follow than the old one.”

One key difference to note between the original and newer versions is the filming styles and technology available. In Cohen’s 1990 version, Tim Curry as Pennywise was terrifying, but like many classic horror films it felt campy and cheesy. No gore or guts were ever shown; any pivotable scary moments with Pennywise were paired with loud music, slow motion and abrupt fade ins and outs. This style is like that of “Psycho,” “The Omen” and other classic horror films. In Dauberman’s newer versions, intense CGI — even altering Bill Skarsgård’s face as Pennywise — creates a modern and horrific image. 

Overall I find both the original and new versions to be entertaining. Depending on the style of horror one prefers; classic versus special effects. While I am still not sure if remaking films is benefiting the film industry at all, I highly recommend both versions of the classic tale of a terrifying clown.

Contact the author at howlentertainment@wou.edu