Editorials
Returning to Derry 30 Years Later: Why the Miniseries is My Preferred Adaptation of Stephen King’s ‘It’
On November 18th 1990, Stephen King’s It made its television debut. In the 30 years since its release, the two-part miniseries has become a renowned cinematic adaptation of the author’s writing. Among the many King stories that have jumped to the screen, It is my all-time favorite. Not only do I find It to be an awesome horror experience, but I also consider the miniseries to be a solid examination of childhood trauma.
I was thrilled when I first heard It was being remade. Being delivered in two parts, each reflecting the childhood and adult segments of King’s novel respectively, I immediately went to the theatre for both films (2017’s It and 2019’s It Chapter Two). But of these three adaptations of King’s novel, I still find the ‘90s miniseries to be the strongest.
To celebrate the 30th anniversary of Stephen King’s It, I look to examine the miniseries and the remakes. Specifically, what they do differently from one another when it comes to the kid and adult counterparts of the Losers Club, and how each handles their representation of trauma. Please note there will be spoilers for all three movies.
Though their overall narratives are similar, the plotting throughout the 1990s It and the remakes are different. Whereas the remakes split up the kid and adult stories, starting with the kids, the miniseries starts in the present day with the adults. Unlike the opening of 2017’s It where Georgie is killed, ‘90s It begins with older Mike coming across a crime scene involving a murdered child. Realizing It is back, Mike calls each member of the Losers Club. One by one they each get their call, with the viewer being granted a childhood flashback for each to learn more about them.
In only focusing on the kids, 2017’s It allows for a different experience. This It, rather than feeling like a part of a whole, comes across like its own isolated story. Where this film achieves more than the miniseries is in its depiction of the bond between the Losers. The film shares a similar quality with that of another popular contemporary horror title– Stranger Things. Both works, though they offer unique chills, leverage nostalgia. The 2017 remake comes across like a time machine, offering an appeal that may entice one to recall their own childhood. The viewer gets an additional layer of closeness among the Losers; watching them play in kid-like scenarios is more immersive compared to a few scenes of them lounging at the quarry (like in ‘90s It). The worst thing I could say about the 2017 remake is that it does Mike a grave injustice, given how significant he is in the miniseries and how little he is utilized in the film.
That said, both works present an authentic relationship between the Losers. From their encounters with Pennywise, to their own individual struggles, one gets the sense that these friends truly care for one another.
But of course, It is a horror story. Scares are subjective, so personally speaking, I find the horror of ‘90s It to land stronger than that of the remakes. To be fair, given how the miniseries and 2017 It establish their characters, each does provide a sincere means to feel for them when in danger. But how the danger and dread are conveyed in both the miniseries and remakes is different.
2017 and 2019 It come across more Hollywood-esque in their creepiness; spooky music begins playing and then some sort of monster is introduced. The set-up is all very predictable. In ‘90s It however, there is an odd, uncomfortable delivery to each scare. Thinking of Eddie’s shower scene or Ben seeing his dead dad near the dam, these moments come on as naturally eerie. Watching the camera transition back from Ben to Ben’s father as the latter morphs into Pennywise is unnerving. The CGI monsters in both remakes are good fun (some more effective than others), but they don’t get under the skin in the same manner that ‘90s It does. Really, the miniseries is superb in presenting a psychological spin to its horror.
Another big difference between the three is that of Pennywise. Tim Curry and Bill Skarsgård both do an excellent job in their respective roles – but each does make for a different Pennywise. They each provide their own spin on the eccentric, evil clown; where Skarsgård’s is more unhinged, even goofy, Curry’s is more menacing. A noticeable aspect I see in ‘90s It is that, in the childhood and adult portions of the story, Pennywise comes across as cruel. I feel, for the most part, this is something missing in the remakes. In the 2019 film, Pennywise makes an effort to toy with the Losers, but in the miniseries, his taunting is more aggressive, purposely pulling at what hurts each of them. Pennywise is also utilized in a conservative matter in the 2019 film; he appears obviously, but it’s like his evilness is restrained. I feel a big reasoning behind this is to allow focus on the adult Losers – but this direction proves to be the film’s biggest weakness.
For while the 2017 remake delivers on strong childhood friendship, 2019 It delivers paper thin characters with little to no feeling.
For as long of a movie as Chapter II is, it rushes so much. When thinking about how adult Bill is introduced in the remake, I don’t feel like that’s the Bill I met in 2017. In fact, apart from Richie and Stan, there is a distance when coming to meet these characters again. There isn’t much of a sense of re-connecting with these adult versions of the Losers. I feel what makes ‘90s It stronger in this regard is how the adult counterparts sincerely feel like their childhood counterparts. The miniseries takes its time with each individual, whereas 2019’s It quickly re-introduces everyone and moves them along towards their confrontation with Pennywise. In the slower approach, the viewer gets a stronger understanding of each person and the aspects of their personality and trauma that has traveled with them from childhood into adulthood.
Much of 2019’s It does little to show its audience the psychological turmoil of its characters. When a small peak into each Loser’s respective mind does appear, details are sped through. In particular, the narrative surrounding Bev is horribly rushed. When it comes to everyone returning to Derry, Bev has the most to confront: not only is she confronting her own history with Pennywise, but she is also revisiting the history with her abusive father. Audiences see in the miniseries how that history has carried over into her adulthood, but the 2019 remake runs through that trauma as if it is a side note.
The issue of lack of depth is felt through the adult counterparts of 2019’s It. Little is mentioned about the trauma they each went through as children (with some getting a brief scene with Pennywise to quickly recap anxieties and fears). If anything, the film tries to carry over Bill’s guilt in losing Georgie. He meets a young boy who he believes is in danger from Pennywise and strives to save him. However, that psychic thread between Georgie and the boy feels vague, for the film doesn’t do much to explore Bill’s headspace beyond cries of wanting to save the kid.
An element I really appreciate in the miniseries is how intimate the Losers are with one another as adults. Watching them laugh and be happy is nice, but it’s beautiful to see how they are there for one another when hurting. When one of them cries or remembers something tragic, one or two of the others will come over and give a hug. It’s a small but key component as to what makes the emotional drive of ‘90s It more compelling. That aspect of remembering something tragic flops in 2019 It. The amnesia is used as a plot device to provide revealing context, but that’s it. There are few moments of warmness or coming together when one of the group is struggling.
Many of the problems in 2019 It boil down to weak writing (and unfortunately some lackluster performances from great actors). But also, I would argue that the flashback manner in which the miniseries portrays its characters is more effective.
Rarely does Hollywood release a three plus hour film. It makes sense for a new vision of It to come out in two parts (audiences want to see the whole thing and they’ll pay twice as much). In this case, it makes further sense why the childhood and adult stories would be separated (as to provide a balanced focus of each). Now I’m not saying that this type of delivery is an issue – there’s totally a universe where the remake adult Losers were fully fleshed out with a solid script. But the narrative mechanic of first meeting each character as an adult and then seeing them as kids comes with a greater psychological lens.
When meeting the adults and seeing their childhood life in ‘90s It, one is able to see how they grew. When watching the 2019 It, I feel like I’m watching a movie about a bunch of generic people who are trying to kill an evil clown. Any mentioning of who they were and what they’ve gone through is either glossed over or used to provide something to the story’s supernatural angle.
In the miniseries, the adult Losers are burdened by the horrors of their childhood; whether it is memories returning, or elements of their childhood still lingering in their adult years, these Losers are haunted. Their pain isn’t just about Pennywise, but living with everything that coincided with what he represented. And most importantly, the miniseries shows the Losers coming together in that trauma – it shows them listening to, embracing, and supporting one another.
Regardless of version though, at the heart of It is a story about confronting trauma. Though I appreciate the heartwarming moments of friends being together and having fun, I am equally intrigued by how these friends battle the darkness of their past. In that representation, I view the ‘90s It to be the superior cinematic adaptation of King’s novel. As I re-watched the miniseries in preparation for this article, it hit me in a surreal way when Mike would talk about how it has been 30 years and It has returned. I was born a little before the miniseries’ release, so as a 30-year-old reflecting on one of my favorite works turning 30 – that’s pretty special.
Stephen King’s It is a brilliant and chilling tale of childhood trauma. Though it may be most remembered for its iconic evil clown, it is a story that proves that whatever form our monster may take, we are strong enough to confront it. The more together we are, the better.
The great Ernest Dickerson turns seventy-five years old this month, so we’re looking back at his most memorable contribution to the horror genre – 1995’s Tales from the Crypt: Demon Knight!
The film hit screens while the Tales from the Crypt series was winding down its run on television, and it stands apart with a story that feels a step or two removed from the franchise norm. That was the smart play, though, as the show’s stories – and those from the original EC comics – work best in short bites. The result is a film that holds up beautifully as a gory good time.
Now keep reading to see what I heard on the commentary for…
Tales from the Crypt: Demon Knight (1995)
Commentator: Ernest Dickerson (director), Michael Felsher (moderator)
1. Dickerson was in post-production on Surviving the Game when he got a call from his agent saying that producer Gil Adler wanted to meet about a Tales from the Crypt feature film. It went well, so Dickerson met with Joel Silver next and secured the job.
2. The original screenplay for the film came to the producers as a spec script wholly detached from the Tales from the Crypt brand. They added the Crypt Keeper (voiced by John Kassir) bookends to make it fit.
3. Dickerson was more familiar with the original EC comic books having read them as a kid, but he had watched a few episodes of the HBO series, so he knew what the current vibe was for the project.
4. Adler directed the film’s wraparound segments, meaning Dickerson never actually got to work with the creepy puppet. “Gil and the Crypt Keeper had a great relationship,” he adds, “they worked together for years.”
5. While he was new to the Tales from the Crypt family, Dickerson had previously worked as a director of photography on the Tales from the Darkside anthology series. That show is underappreciated in my humble opinion, and I will go to bat for both it and the equally underloved Monsters.
6. A big appeal of the horror genre for Dickerson is the idea of dark mysteries that challenge our imagination. For this film, that came down to the mythology being created between the characters.
7. Five executive producers are listed in the opening credits, but Dickerson says the only two he had dealings with were Silver and Richard Donner. The other three were Walter Hill, Robert Zemeckis, and David Giler.
8. Dickerson had only ever seen Billy Zane in movies with a full head of hair, so he was surprised when Zane showed up on the first day with a bald head. “He had this case, and he opened up the case that he had all these hair pieces in, and he says, ‘So which one of these do you think I should use?’” Dickerson looked at him and suggested he just go bald for the character.
9. While the bulk of the opening exteriors were filmed in a desert just outside Los Angeles, the shot of the old church at 11:26 was created on a warehouse hangar soundstage where the film’s interiors were shot.
10. When he had read the script, Dickerson pictured the character of Jeryline (Jada Pinkett Smith) “as a little, tough lady.” He had recently seen Smith in Menace II Society, and while the producers had someone else in mind for the role, he fought to get her instead.
11. Just as Zane surprised Dickerson with his hair (or lack thereof), Smith arrived on the first day with her hair dyed platinum white. He “liked the idea” but asked her to please get it tweaked so it looked more yellowish blond. “It’s definitely a statement.”
12. He had seen Brenda Bakke in the 1989 sci-fi/action film from Japan, Gunhed, and thought she’d be great here as Cordelia. The rest of us might recognize her from Death Spa or Trucks.
13. Felsher comments that the film’s setup does a good job not telegraphing who’s going to live or die, and he uses the “nice guy” (Charles Fleischer) and “the kid” (Ryan O’Donohue) as examples. “You don’t play by those rules here,” he says, and Dickerson replies that he wanted to subvert those rules. That extends to Smith as well because she’s Black, “and usually in movies like this they’re the first folks to die.”
14. Dickerson says they had forty days of filming, “which, the way I’m used to working, was a very generous schedule.” It was budgeted at around $10 million.
15. This probably won’t surprise you, but Zane improvised the bit at 26:25 after he jumps out the window and says, “Fuck this cowboy shit! You fuckin’, hodunk Podunk, well, then, motherfuckers!”
16. In the original script, the demons that The Collector (Zane) raises from the dirt actually looked more like the people they used to be. “They were more human,” but the very smart decision was made in pre-production to make them look far more unique instead.
17. The demons are killed by shooting their eyes, but Dickerson felt there should be one more element to it. “Shoot out their eyes, you gotta duck because the souls come shooting out, and if it hits ya, boom, it can kill ya.” This is a fun touch.
18. He’s been asked more than once if these demons are where Peter Jackson got the idea for how the orcs would look in his Lord of the Rings movies. “They do look like orcs.”
19. He recalls having seen Ronny Yu’s The Bride with White Hair shortly before going to work on Demon Knight, and he hoped to bring some of that staged style into his own film. An example of that in practice is Brayker’s (William Sadler) brief flashbacks to Christ on the cross.
20. Character deaths were mostly based on the idea that “each person’s downfall was going to be predicated by their weakness.” The Collector discovers someone’s weakness and then uses it against them. Cordelia wants to be loved, Jeryline wants to travel, Uncle Willy (Dick Miller) is a horndog for both liquor and ladies, Danny loves horror comics, etc.
21. Dickerson says that plenty of genre classics were in the back of his head while making the film, including Assault on Precinct 13, Alien, Aliens, and more.
22. Cordelia is possessed into a demonic form, and Dickerson’s idea for how she’d look was originally a bit different. “Since Cordelia was a prostitute, I thought that her mouth should actually be a vertical slit that was in her stomach… which would open up with teeth and a tongue.” It was nixed, he says, when “the wife of one of the producers read that and said ‘no way you’re putting that in the movie.’”
23. The key makes an appearance in the followup, Tales from the Crypt: Bordello of Blood, but it wasn’t originally meant to. Apparently, early test audiences expected it to be a more connected sequel to Demon Knight, so the filmmakers added it in to appease them. This is where I go on record saying that Bordello of Blood is a fun time. Can’t touch Demon Knight, obviously, but it’s more entertaining than its reputation suggests.
24. They had to film Uncle Willy’s bar scene “dream” twice, once with the women topless and once with them in bikinis, to have versions for both theaters and television broadcast. “Dick’s a pro.” (To be fair, Dickerson says this in regard to Miller having to endure the makeup application, but the sentiment fits both situations, so…)
25. Dickerson says he’s “always amazed at the love that people show this film,” and adds that fans bring it up to him incredibly often. This is great to hear, as we should always be telling artists how much their work means to us while they’re still alive and able to hear it.
26. Zane also suggested the gag at 1:08:21 with the sponge coming out of his mouth. The beat reminds Dickerson to praise the actor even more, adding that he was an “ally” to the director when “bad ideas” came down from the studio suits.
27. He didn’t get any pushback on killing little Danny. He did insist on one added element, though, as he wanted to immediately follow the boy exploding in the air with a shot of his bloody and torn sneaker hitting the ground below. “And the sneaker had to be a hightop.”
28. Dickerson says there’s “something kinky sexy about” Smith being covered in blood, and then the two commentators go quiet for almost two minutes out of respect for the scene. It’s a good opportunity to reflect on how Dickerson had previously mentioned Alien and Aliens as films being in the back of his head during filming, and how two scenes here reflect that – Jeryline stripping down to her underwear for the final confrontation feels like a nod to Ridley Scott’s film, while an earlier scene with Irene (CCH Pounder) and Dep. Bob (Gary Farmer) realizing they’re surrounded and choosing to blow themselves up alongside some of the demons is something of a callback to the air vent sacrifice in James Cameron’s film.
29. Asked about the film’s critical reception at the time of release, Dickerson says it received good reviews from horror-loving critics and then talks about the importance of horror in general. “Horror has always been a great way of putting out ideas, of talking about some of the things that affect us as people. Some of the best horror, like the best science fiction, talks about what it’s like to be human. Some of the best horror gets very political.”
30. The original ending would have featured The Collector showing “his true self, which is a demon made of fire.” They spent a lot of time trying to make it work, but it was “extremely difficult… back in the day of analog effects.” It was rewritten into the faceoff between him and Jeryline featuring the dancing, the crotch fire, Zane’s attempts at saying “love,” and his eventual demise from her bloody spit.
31. They both agree that a direct sequel to Demon Knight could be a lot of fun, but Dickerson says he’s unaware of any talk on the possibility.
32. Dickerson was super excited about this new Scream Factory Blu-ray in 2015, and he mentions that before its release, he had imported a Blu-ray from Germany presumably to enjoy the film in HD. He’s just like us! (Or am I the only one here who’s imported a German Blu-ray of the much maligned werewolf flick Big Bad Wolf…)
Quotes Without Context
“I was so happy to get Dick Miller for this movie.”
“There was a time when guys used to put ketchup on everything.”
“I’m a big student of Hitchcock, and the best way to make a moment of horror work is to lull the audience into a false sense of security.”
“A villain should always be the most interesting person in a movie.”
“They were a really great bunch of performers who were performing on these little leg-extension stilts wearing a diaper that had a radio-controlled tail that was being manipulated by a special effects tech right out of the frame.”
“It’s hard to direct air; it doesn’t do what you want.”
“The only censorship problem came from the producer’s wife, who didn’t want the vagina dentalis [sic] in the movie.”
“One of the executives wanted to know why the devil didn’t try to have sex with Jada.”
“It always starts with the script.”
Keep up with more horror commentary breakdowns here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.