I've seen the movie three times now and keep circling back in my mind to three of the big changes from the book to the movie. I was skeptical of all of these at first but they all work really well for me.
The big one is moving the story forward 30 years. Full disclaimer that I was born in the '80s so I'm solidly in the demographic that connects more with a story set in 1988 than 1958. I can totally understand that someone older who has more of a personal connection with the late '50s might be really disappointed in the change. But I think it works beyond just connecting with the younger portion of the audience, and most importantly, I don't see that anything crucial is lost. IMHO, childhood in 1988 has a lot more in common with childhood in 1958 than it does with childhood in 2017. We see Richie playing video games at the arcade, but it's not like every kid has a smartphone that they're glued to as they probably would be today.
Another one that I haven't read much analysis of, maybe because a lot of reviewers who aren't big King fans either never read the book or don't remember, is making the kids a couple years older. I think there's a pretty big difference between 11 and 13, and from what I remember 13 is a much more transitional age between childhood and adulthood. It works very well on a couple of plot points; getting rid of the scene where they're in the Barrens building a dam makes more sense when the characters are 13 and probably a bit old to be doing something like that anyway. And it sets up the scene of the boys' facial expressions as they're watching Beverly after they swim, which I think perfectly captures what it's like to be that age and not necessarily in love with, but totally in awe of a girl. Plus it puts Stan at the age where he's preparing for his bar mitzvah, a very obvious rite of passage. Most of all, I love that most of the actors are actually very close to the age they're playing; I know a couple of them are a bit older, but we don't have anybody trying to play someone quite a bit younger and failing miserably as so often happens in movies.
The final one is the one that made me cringe when I read the first review, so it's ironic that it's the one I end up liking the most. Changing the story so that Georgie's body is not found, and Bill still believes for most of the movie that he could be alive, made no sense to me at first. But it makes the scene in the sewer where Bill shoots It-disguised-as-Georgie so much more emotional for me. Not only is he being faced with the representation of what he wants most in the world - his little brother, begging to be taken home - but he actually believed until very recently that that wish could be fulfilled. This makes the strength and resolve he shows to say "but you're not Georgie" and shoot It seem almost superhuman; his wish for Georgie to come back is not just the fantasy of a child mourning a dead brother, but something he thought could actually happen. And the contrast between Georgie in the basement when Bill sees him late at night and Georgie in the sewers is done so well. In the basement, even before Georgie's face starts to change you just instinctively feel that there's something off about him and that it's Pennywise behind his appearance. In the sewer, he seems so much just like a scared little kid that it's hard to believe anything else. (So much so that on my first viewing, I had a moment of panic where I thought, jeez, don't tell me they're going to give us a happy ending and make it that he actually is alive).
Now, there are some other changes I'm less happy about, but I've rambled long enough. What did others think, either about these changes or some of the other major ones?
The big one is moving the story forward 30 years. Full disclaimer that I was born in the '80s so I'm solidly in the demographic that connects more with a story set in 1988 than 1958. I can totally understand that someone older who has more of a personal connection with the late '50s might be really disappointed in the change. But I think it works beyond just connecting with the younger portion of the audience, and most importantly, I don't see that anything crucial is lost. IMHO, childhood in 1988 has a lot more in common with childhood in 1958 than it does with childhood in 2017. We see Richie playing video games at the arcade, but it's not like every kid has a smartphone that they're glued to as they probably would be today.
Another one that I haven't read much analysis of, maybe because a lot of reviewers who aren't big King fans either never read the book or don't remember, is making the kids a couple years older. I think there's a pretty big difference between 11 and 13, and from what I remember 13 is a much more transitional age between childhood and adulthood. It works very well on a couple of plot points; getting rid of the scene where they're in the Barrens building a dam makes more sense when the characters are 13 and probably a bit old to be doing something like that anyway. And it sets up the scene of the boys' facial expressions as they're watching Beverly after they swim, which I think perfectly captures what it's like to be that age and not necessarily in love with, but totally in awe of a girl. Plus it puts Stan at the age where he's preparing for his bar mitzvah, a very obvious rite of passage. Most of all, I love that most of the actors are actually very close to the age they're playing; I know a couple of them are a bit older, but we don't have anybody trying to play someone quite a bit younger and failing miserably as so often happens in movies.
The final one is the one that made me cringe when I read the first review, so it's ironic that it's the one I end up liking the most. Changing the story so that Georgie's body is not found, and Bill still believes for most of the movie that he could be alive, made no sense to me at first. But it makes the scene in the sewer where Bill shoots It-disguised-as-Georgie so much more emotional for me. Not only is he being faced with the representation of what he wants most in the world - his little brother, begging to be taken home - but he actually believed until very recently that that wish could be fulfilled. This makes the strength and resolve he shows to say "but you're not Georgie" and shoot It seem almost superhuman; his wish for Georgie to come back is not just the fantasy of a child mourning a dead brother, but something he thought could actually happen. And the contrast between Georgie in the basement when Bill sees him late at night and Georgie in the sewers is done so well. In the basement, even before Georgie's face starts to change you just instinctively feel that there's something off about him and that it's Pennywise behind his appearance. In the sewer, he seems so much just like a scared little kid that it's hard to believe anything else. (So much so that on my first viewing, I had a moment of panic where I thought, jeez, don't tell me they're going to give us a happy ending and make it that he actually is alive).
Now, there are some other changes I'm less happy about, but I've rambled long enough. What did others think, either about these changes or some of the other major ones?
