IT is the first great Stephen King adaptation in a long while (from here on in I’m going to refer to the movie as IT and the normal word it as it to avoid confusion about it and IT). However, for some reason, they changed a bunch of things and I’m not exactly sure why or for what purpose some of the changes were made. It’s a movie that should have been a mini-series.

***DISCLAIMER*** I’m going to spoil both the movie and book. You have been warned.

The Good:

I’m not going to talk about Pennywise until a later section. Sorry. I also want to preface this by saying that I actually loved this movie, despite that most of this essay is spent talking about things it missed the mark on. IT is tied as my favorite Stephen King book with The Stand, and as such I can’t help but want to explore how the changes function overall.

IT is one of those Stephen King books that, as most readers tend to find true in most of his novels, relies far more on strong characters than on the actual horror of what the plot is dictating. That isn’t to say the book isn’t terrifying; it is. Thankfully, this new movie takes the time to develop the Losers and make them real, rounded characters. The standouts of the group are Richie Tozier, Beverly Marsh, Eddie Kaspbrak, and Ben Hanscom, with Beverly managing to take the spotlight as the standout of the standouts. Unfortunately, due to changes I’ll discuss later, the group leader Bill Denbrough is short-changed, and Mike Hanlon is almost unrecognizable. Stanley Uris is still the most uninteresting member of the group, but thanks to a strong performance he manages to hold some presence. The film spends a huge amount of time establishing the characters and their relationships to one another, and it turns out to be time well spent because the rest of the movie just coasts on the foundational work they put in at the beginning. The scenes with Ben ring just as true as they do in the novel, managing to portray the painful and genuine feelings he holds for Beverly. His performance is the one that strikes most central to my emotional core, but all the Loser’s manage to portray their individual parts of childhood pain effectively.

The town of Derry is wonderful, and horrifying, to behold. There is a real sense of geography like in the novel, and the small amounts of screen time given to the various ancillary residents is put to good use. The pharmacy is sufficiently creepy, Beverly’s dad is predatorily and horrifying, Eddie’s mom is anxiety attack inducing, and the single scene with Bill’s dad after Georgie goes missing manages to portray both his emotional trauma, and the mother’s – a scene made even more powerful from her absence from the film, mirroring her absence from Bill’s life, following the introduction. The time spent on the town is not wasted, and it functions as another rock to anchor the atrocities these kids are about to endure to.

The bullies are fucking terrifying… yay! It feels strange to applaud the portrayal of truly shit-stirring acts of bullying, but it’s one of the strongest and most emotionally resonant aspects of the book and to see it put on screen so honestly is really a wonderful, albeit also the aforementioned shit-stirring, feeling. Victor Kriss and Belch Huggins are unfortunately turned into one-note roles that are barely characters, but this turns out to sort of work for the film in the long run. The characters are never centrally important in the book – although their slow drifting from and realization of Bower’s increasingly deficient sanity is one of the more interesting side notes in the novel – and here they serve to reinforce Bowers presence. Henry Bowers is every bit as awful in this movie as he is in the book; and that’s fantastic. Bowers is one of the stronger aspects of King’s novel. The portrayal of bullying in the book both works as grounded and realistic for the first half, but then transcends its grounding and becomes an entirely different kind of horror in the second half. This works in the book to help highlight the kids being pushed even further out of childhood and into adulthood, and while the movie does show Bower’s escalation, it doesn’t go all the way with it. I’m ultimately okay with this despite being a bit disappointed that a few key scenes were missing.

The Changes:

The book takes place in the present day of the 1980s, with the story of the kids functioning as flashbacks/memories of the now grown-up characters. This works in a novel where the structural choices are freer and allow for this kind of continual jumping back and forth, but as a movie it was necessary to split the book into the two halves; adulthood and childhood. The movie opts to leave the implications of the kid’s inevitable return unsaid until the final moments of the film, and while it ultimately works for this movie, I can’t help but worry that without the proper set-up, it’s going to make the sequel feel a bit disjointed. Only time will tell. This is hardly one of the more egregious changes, but it is a change nonetheless. Other changes include: no mention of the connecting glass hallway between the two library sections, the change to the terrain of the final encounter with IT, the absence of the Loser’s clubhouse, and various other minor tweaks. These aren’t all egregious, and their mostly understandable, but as is the case with all changes, I wish they had been presented as written in the book. But, on to more pressing issues.

The changes made to Bill and his younger brother Georgie, who is murdered at the start of the film (and book) in surprisingly gruesome fashion, are confusing to me. I don’t understand the necessity of making it so Bill doesn’t know his brother is dead. It feels like it was put in there as a sort of emotional arc for the character, but all it really does is push the actual emotional arc written in the book to the background. In the book, Bill is fully aware of the fact that Georgie is dead, and this becomes a point of stunted emotional development for him. His parents start ignoring him, his presence being too painful a reminder of what he’s missing, and Bill himself starts to ignore the issue; he can’t cry about the loss of his brother. This is manifested, in the book, in the debilitating escalation of his stuttering until he is barely able to spit out even simple sentences. This emotional arc for Bill comes to a rounded close in the final act, where speaking is essential to the defeat of IT, but this entire plot is left undeveloped in the movie. It feels like a strange choice, one possibly made because of the issue of time, and it makes me with that this had been another miniseries instead. Bill is hardly the worst issue, however.

What the hell happened Mike Hanlon? Seriously. This is the strangest and most absurd change in from the book. Mike is barely a character in this movie whereas in the book he is essential – like all the characters are – and plays a crucial role. The change from just simply being in a different class at school to being homeschooled is fine and doesn’t affect much, but the familial rejiggering does. For some bizarre reason, Mike’s parents are dead in the movie. This is a change that I absolutely do not understand in any way shape or form. It seems like the movie is trying to tie his parent’s death to his emotional investment in the Losers club and the story at hand, but all it really does is sacrifice one of the best relationships in the book. Mike’s dad is a truly wonderful character – he is a caring and strong role model for Mike, and their relationship is depicted with grace and real honest emotion – and his relationship to the plot is crucial. In the book, Mike plays the role of town historian (a role that is for some reason given to Ben in the movie) and his father is one of the first people to offer him insight on the town’s history. This entire plot-thread is just left hanging, only briefly mentioned by Ben and never expanded upon, and it is one of the more painfully misrepresented parts of the movie.

The sacrifice of Belch and Victor’s characters in the movie is an understandable one, but still a disappointing one. They function as some of the only earthly ties that Bowers has, and throughout the novel the slow erosion of their “friendship” is used to effectively mark his descent into looney-town. While the sacrifice of the relationship is understandable, their lack of presence in the finale is odd. In the book, they are both killed in the tunnel by IT while Bowers moves on to try and catch up to the Losers. It’s a moment that marks his complete mental decay, and it also functions as a horrifying tether to the past for his inevitable return to Derry 27 years later.

Patrick Hockstetter makes an appearance in this movie, albeit briefly, and while I’m happy that he was even in it at all, I can’t help but lament the loss of a character who manages to briefly out-crazy Bowers in the book. Patrick is a full-on psychopath in the novel – he puts animals in a fridge to suffocate them to death, and he murdered his younger brother by smothering him when he was 5 – and his death is one of the most gruesome and memorable deaths in the entire book. It marks the point where the introductions and town building are done, and the horror has taken center stage. I understand the time-issue ever present in movies, but I can’t help but wonder if the moments with Patrick would have been better spent on Victor and Belch instead.

The plot changes are somewhat minor, but still confusing at points. The overall progression of the book is present in the movie. The kids start separate, come together finally in the rock-fight and venture into the house on 29 Neibolt St, but after that point the movie moves into original territory. In the book, the inevitable journey through the sewers is spurred on by Patrick, Victor, and Belch chasing the Losers into them, but the movie opts for a different route. The film introduces an old well-house, and uses it as the entrance to IT’s lair. The well is placed inside 29 Neibolt St, which is a smart, economic decision in terms of plotting, but it feels weaker than the progression in the book. More importantly, however, the impetus for the Losers journey into the depths is altered in the movie. Beverly is kidnapped by Pennywise, and is used as bait for the Losers to make their way back into the house and finally down into the well. This feels like a change made because of time restrictions rather than thematic shifting, but it still feels like a weird choice. In the book, the bullies forcing the kids into the sewers, a place entirely unknown to the Losers, functions as a continuation of the metaphor for growing-up that is incorporated throughout the entire novel. The change to the way that the kids end up in the sewers feels like another moment where the movie diverges from the intended point of the source material. That said, it’s time to stop beating around the bush.

Let’s talk about Pennywise.

Skarsgard steals the film whenever he is allowed to act, and isn’t being depicted as CGI. His Pennywise is at once whimsical and funny while also managing to be nightmarish (I would like to briefly mention that, for the first time in literal years, this movie actually gave me a nightmare. His performance is so memorable I dreamed about it; albeit in a different and entirely fucked up dream of my own invention.) The added scene at the beginning of the film where Pennywise has a little conversation with Georgie is the best film-original moment. It manages to ratchet up the inevitable, and yet still shockingly brutal, death that’s about to occur. While Pennywise’s presence in the film is effective, and Skarsgard’s performance is electric, there is an unfortunate departure from the books at work with the resident evil of Derry.

So, it might be strange to hear but I think this movie has a too-much-Pennywise issue. Pennywise is far and away the most iconic villain of both the book and the 1990 miniseries, but he’s used in a small role overall. The way IT functions in the book is that it takes the form of whatever the person it’s tormenting’s worst nightmare is. In the book this includes a giant, murderous Paul Bunyan statue, a Werewolf, the Leper, gigantic flying Leeches, zombie versions of the missing children, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, Rodan (from the Godzilla films)/giant crow, the Boris Karloff version of the Mummy, and various other hideous forms. The forms that IT takes throughout the book are both relevant to the character’s psychologies, as well as the era they take place in. Pennywise is IT’s most preferred form, but when weighed against the expansive list of its shapeshifting endeavors, he’s also the least used of all the forms. This is where the film falls short for me. While I love the Pennywise performance, I think that the overuse of him as the main form of IT kind of misses a whole possibility for scares that could only be done in this particular story. This film has been altered to take place in the 80s instead of the 50s, but it feels like an entirely aesthetic change that doesn’t tap into any of the horror potential here. IT takes the form of things that the kids fear, but it never becomes anything iconic and era defining like it did in the book. Why doesn’t it become Freddie Krueger? A Nightmare on Elm Street 5 is advertised on a theater marquee in the film, alongside Tim Burton’s Batman (wouldn’t a Joker appearance be kind of batshit in the best way?) The 80s are full of pop culture icons that IT could take advantage of, but instead it relies entirely on the Pennywise gimmick. The Leper is the only scare that feels specifically tailored to the consciousness of one of the characters, Eddie – the painting IT turns into to scare Stan is actually an excellent choice (Stan is a character that is defined by how neat and orderly he is. The painting is an abstract hell-scape. Perfect clash), but it’s one that most of the audience won’t get because no time is spent on Stan whatsoever. This is especially aggravating when the film specifically nods to things from the book; why you would show the standpipe in the background of a scene, talk about The Black-Spot, and show the Paul Bunyan statue, but do nothing with them is beyond me to comprehend. The references stop feeling like cool, in-joke nods, and feel instead like missed potential. All of this culminates in the inevitable showdown in the sewers.

Last spoiler warning reminder!

Before I talk about the mix that is the finally of the film, I want to first talk about what exactly IT is. IT is a gigantic spider. Except it isn’t. IT is actually a collection of destructive lights called the Deadlights that exist outside of our universe. From the outside, IT manifests itself in the town of Derry through various forms. Pennywise is the favorite of these, but the gigantic Shelob-esque spider is the closest to what IT actually is that the human mind can comprehend without going stark-raving mad. These are important details because the way the kids can defeat IT is the double-edged sword of IT’s manifestation on Earth. IT feeds off the fear generated by imaginations – children’s imaginations are the most potent, which is why IT chooses the younger members of society to feast on – which is why it takes the various forms it does; IT’s essentially cultivating the kids as meals. The double-edged sword is that for IT to feed on the kids, IT needs to manifest itself on Earth in various forms. By doing so, IT essentially becomes real, and IT follows the rules of whatever the kids are imagining. This is what makes it possible to be killed. In the book, when the kids confront IT in the house on 29 Neibolt street, and all believe that IT is a werewolf, they can injure it with a silver slingshot pellet that Bev shoots IT with. This ruleset for IT is alluded to in the film where Bill manages to injure Pennywise with a gun that has nothing loaded into it. Other than that moment, however, it feels like this aspect of the book is entirely lost. We never see the spider form, and there is only a brief nod to the what IT truly in the horrific throat scene. I don’t even want to get into The Turtle, who is alluded to in the film but never utilized, because all these changes and omissions amount to is a shift in focus. It’s a grounding of the film, and while I understand why it was done, it all results in the absence of my favorite scene, which I am bitter about.

The thing that I’m most upset about, however, is the absence of the Ritual of Chud. This is the moment where, as I like to say, the book just fucking goes for it. Bill gets into a tug-o-war match with IT by latching his mind on to IT’s consciousness. He is ripped out of his body, thrown across the entire universe, and almost thrust out into the macro verse (this what King calls the space outside of our universe; it’s explored more in the Dark Tower books where IT also makes an appearance). It’s one of the most insane and beautiful moments in the book – described in some of King’s best prose – and it’s also the emotional climax of Bill’s arc. Part of the requirements of the Ritual of Chud is that Bill essentially must talk IT to death, without stuttering. This would at first appear to be impossible, given Bill’s inability to speak without shuttering, but Bill ends up rising to the challenge when he discovers that, in his mind, he doesn’t stutter at all. His character arc comes to a rest as he fights off the outside-the-universe extra-dimensional evil through pure willpower. It’s awesome. And it’s not in the movie. At all. It’s not nodded to or mentioned in passing, and while I understand the point of excluding it and grounding the story with Pennywise as the climax of the movie, I’m disappointed nonetheless at its exclusion.

Finally, let’s talk about “that” scene. You know which one. Or maybe you don’t, because it wasn’t in the movie. The scene in question is the moment that 11-year-old Beverly Marsh offers up her virginity to the rest of the group to tether themselves together one last time as they try to make their way out of the sewers. Yes, this scene is out of place. Yes, I understand why a large majority of people would find it offensive. Yes, I do like this moment in the book. The scene is meant to be the final moment that the kids leave childhood behind, and fully inhabit the adult world they have been thrust further and further into throughout the book. King doesn’t focus on the sexual aspects of this scene, choosing instead to focus on what it means for the character’s psychologies and emotional growth. It also functions as a redemptive, sexually freeing moment for Bev, who has been abused and derided by her father her whole life about her sexuality, and who is making her own choice about her body in a way that could be looked at as sex-positive. The scene also functions as the real thematic point for why the book is called IT. IT is what we call sex when we are kids. All of that said, the omission of this scene from the movie makes sense. This is a film that already depicts some of the most brutal acts of violence to children I’ve ever seen in a film – specifically the scene with Georgie at the beginning – and the inclusion of a scene as controversial as this one would have certainly resulted in mass boycotting of the film. I think there is an entirely different conversation to be had about why the scene is as controversial as it is (no I’m not saying that people are too sensitive about child sex), but I don’t feel like opening that can of worms right now.

Final Thoughts

My ultimate takeaway from the film was that I thoroughly enjoyed IT as both a film and an adaptation of the book, but I still want a completely faithful mini-series adaptation at some point in the future. The movie nails the parts that count – the Losers, the town, and Pennywise – and I’m willing to forgive the changes the creators decided to make. I can only hope that the incredible success of this film already (13 million on a Thursday night!) sparks a whole new wave of Stephen King adaptations and re-adaptations. The book IT will always be incredibly personal to me, nothing can change that, but I am truly thrilled that the film will introduce so many new people to the town of Derry, and the wonderful characters within.