MagnaderAlpha
Member
People rant about the Pennywise scene in the library, even though the whole "Prince Albert in a Can" bit was featured in the novel. They act like the novel's Pennywise didn't say some goofy-ass shit, when the novel's Pennywise said stuff like "I'd never describe Curry's performance as a "silly normal clown". It's really not. That performance scared the living hell out of me as a kid, and I still find it unsettling. It is a pretty big deviation from the books, though. And while I still find it unsettling and interesting, it's not scary to grown-up me.
The new one, as seen in the clip, is scary as hell to me now, though. Maybe that's the difference. Curry's was a child's version of a scary clown. The new one is what an adult knows to be scared of, but would get past a young child. (Such as Georgie.) And as More_Badass said, it's much more nuanced and in line with the book.
Edit:
Like, I find that really creepy and effective.
You can't catch me, I'm the Gingerbread Man!"
"I have come to rob all the women... rape all the men... and learn to do the Peppermint Twist!"
And you mentioned the child version versus adult version, which I feel is the biggest difference between the new movie and the novel. The novel was all "child version", which was a theme in the book itself (childhood boundless imagination versus adult logic and cynicism). This movie is more of an adult's take on the story of "It", the look Pennywise, telltale mannerisms and the more "grounded" fears the Losers will have to combat. Not bad, considering it IS a new take on the story, but not super TRUE to the novel either. It is its own thing (its own "beast", so to speak), and there is nothing wrong with that. A true adaptation of the novel would be impossible. Especially considering so much of the story takes place within the minds of the characters (lots of inner thoughts and remembering times that remind them of other times).