Why is IT so much more popular than many other King books?
- Thread starter Gerald
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
...I wish I had an edit button like that....I have stupid thoughts all the time, and you all know I just throw em out there and watch em try to walk.....
César Hernández-Meraz
Wants to be Nick, ends up as Larry
I think It is one of the most popular in the mind of the overall population. They may have never read the book (or any SK book), but people know about It.
It helps that It is an old (classic, even) book.
Newer ones may be loved, but only by people who know they exist.
The mini-series, whether good or not, was seen by a lot of people and had really great iconic images thanks to Tim Curry. I am not really frightened by TV (nor books), but I think I can see how TV It can be scary, especially if one puts oneself in the situation the kids are in. If you are small and frail (or your mom has convinced you of that) and are all alone in public showers (something that is already terrifying, again, for all the fears and misinformation about the dangers of sex your mom has fed you for years), having a clown (or any person of any job) appear from the sink, that is very scary. If we look at it from our detached position as TV viewers, then of course we will never understand what is so scary about a brightly colored clown at all.
So, Pennywise is very known by all kinds of people. Many will not even be aware the clown persona is called Pennywise, but they will definitely recognize It.
Now, if we talk about other famous SK adaptations, what about "The Green Mile" or "The Shawshank Redemption". Both were excellent movies and both did a good job of respecting the source material. Both are loved by fans and critics alike. But a lot of people are not aware they are Stephen King stories. Since Mr. King is a "horror writer" (that is the way those people may think of him), they do not relate those movies with him.
And new adaptations may simply be too new to be that well known. It has been around for decades, reaching a lot of people in the meantime.
It helps that It is an old (classic, even) book.
Newer ones may be loved, but only by people who know they exist.
The mini-series, whether good or not, was seen by a lot of people and had really great iconic images thanks to Tim Curry. I am not really frightened by TV (nor books), but I think I can see how TV It can be scary, especially if one puts oneself in the situation the kids are in. If you are small and frail (or your mom has convinced you of that) and are all alone in public showers (something that is already terrifying, again, for all the fears and misinformation about the dangers of sex your mom has fed you for years), having a clown (or any person of any job) appear from the sink, that is very scary. If we look at it from our detached position as TV viewers, then of course we will never understand what is so scary about a brightly colored clown at all.
So, Pennywise is very known by all kinds of people. Many will not even be aware the clown persona is called Pennywise, but they will definitely recognize It.
Now, if we talk about other famous SK adaptations, what about "The Green Mile" or "The Shawshank Redemption". Both were excellent movies and both did a good job of respecting the source material. Both are loved by fans and critics alike. But a lot of people are not aware they are Stephen King stories. Since Mr. King is a "horror writer" (that is the way those people may think of him), they do not relate those movies with him.
And new adaptations may simply be too new to be that well known. It has been around for decades, reaching a lot of people in the meantime.
Amen to this! Also throw in Stand By Me and Misery, both of which are amazing adaptations thanks to Rob Reiner. I think Apt Pupil was a very good adaptation as well, the only problem is how sceevy the story makes me feel.
I'm not a fan of The Stand adaptation unfortunately. I think it goes back to that whole TV casting thing, even though there are plenty of film stars in there. Gary Sinese, Laura Sangiacomo, and Miguel Ferrer are well-placed. But the Parker Lewis kid and what's-his-name from Coach...just uugh. Also, there's something about the production value that just bugs me, although it's hard to pinpoint. Either it's the direction or the photography.
I've read the novel a couple of times. I don't hold it in as high regard as some of SK's other novels in that era, but it's still pretty damn good. The first time I read it, it was a paperback version that had a tag line telling me to watch for the "upcoming film by George Romero" that never materialized. Now that I would've liked to see.
The Stones are my #3 band. The Beatles come in around #5...
#3???
#5???
Dude where you from?
You ain't one of them Commies is ya?
Wait are you one of them millennials?
It's ok man. Nickelback is a fine band.
#3???
#5???
Dude where you from?
You ain't one of them Commies is ya?
Wait are you one of them millennials?
It's ok man. Nickelback is a fine band.
LOL - Hardly. Zeppelin will always be my #1, Pink Floyd will always be #2, #4 is Rush. I'm 47, so pretty sure that puts me in GenX territory.
OK I am 53 and don't want to insult your list at all. Rock n' Roll ain't never a bad thing.
But...(always a but right?)
Been my experience that a few of your top five are much better when listener is in, shall we say, an altered state.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.(Sorry Seinfeld)
College planetariums would never have anybody there if not for Pink Floyd...
And mushrooms...
OK I am 53 and don't want to insult your list at all. Rock n' Roll ain't never a bad thing.
But...(always a but right?)
Been my experience that a few of your top five are much better when listener is in, shall we say, an altered state.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.(Sorry Seinfeld)
College planetariums would never have anybody there if not for Pink Floyd...
And mushrooms...
No arguments there! I used to enjoy those altered states. I've got kids now, so those days are behind me for the most part. But that hasn't hindered my enjoyment of the music. My top ten list of bands is like my top ten list of movies: 1/2 are immovable objects, the other 1/2 are considerably more fluid.
Oldest child of mine is 28. Nothing to change my perception of reality in 28 years, 9 months.
Except pizza and anything greasy.
That stopped March 1st.
Again topic for another thread.
My children say my top 10 in bands has not changed since 1985.
I say OK. I am fine with that.
i think (at least back in those days, tv is edgier and more prone to use good special effects now) any adaptation of his that was a tv miniseries suffered for it. the stand wasn't terrible, but it had plenty of room for improvement
It just looks like very regular tv and special effects are very simple and look very dated now (already didn't look so special at the time). Tv has come a long way since then. You already see the production value go up in later King mini-series like Rose Red and Storm of the Century - even in the Salem's Lot remake, which is far from ideal, but certainly looks great. You can see that some actual money is spent on it - Stephen even joked that if Rose Red or Storm of the Century failed, he wouldn't be allowed to do another one.
The saving grace of mini-series like It or The Stand is very much the actors, there's not much special about the way they look.
I never did see the remake of 'Salems Lot - I feared it going the way of The Shining mini-series. I still love the Kubrick film, regardless of its fidelity to the novel.
IT is my fave King. It is not the most scary (Pet Semetary) but it is the best. One very good reason for it to be popular. I had to buy me a new copy because my old one was read to shreds. The Tv-series was just so-so.
Tough call for me to determine the scariest King. I think It is pretty terrifying, more for the human elements than anything. Henry Bowers is one of the most terrifying characters ever written IMO. Salem's Lot is right there of course, as is The Shining.
For me, it's not just the idea of what "It" is and what it stands for. The Loser's Club itself did it for me, the kids all had parts of their personalities and pasts that I found very relatable in my childhood as well. In talking about bike rides, playing outside, getting dirty, building clubhouses, as well as the problems they face (directly or indirectly related to "It") made me miss my childhood and long for it. The Losers Club isn't comprised of people who grew up to be perfect; their flaws and strengths are relatable, likeable, and easy to identify with. The bond between them is what struck me the most; even though they forgot a lot of the things that happened in '58 the strength of the group was still there, and their love and devotion to one another showed so well almost 3 decades later. The camaraderie they shared made me appreciate those close friends of mine even more and miss the ones I haven't seen in years. Their relationship made me mourn for the past, be glad for the present, and look forward to the future in a sense.
The pages upon pages upon pages of character development might bore some readers, and that's OK if it's not (your) cup of tea. But my take was the realization that the more you know about a person, the more you find yourself becoming attached and forging a friendship. In today's world, where despite the advent of social media and all kinds of easy ways to keep in touch yet more people report feeling isolated and alone, it's a big wake-up call. The more we get to know someone, the easier it is to slip into their shoes and see what life is like for them, creating empathy and love.
JMO...
Towards the end, when the 4 remaining Losers walk through a mirrored door and Bev, for an instant, sees the two that have died (Stan and Eddie) with them, I cried real tears. Don't judge me, I'm not made of stone! 
JMO...
....nice.....For me, it's not just the idea of what "It" is and what it stands for. The Loser's Club itself did it for me, the kids all had parts of their personalities and pasts that I found very relatable in my childhood as well. In talking about bike rides, playing outside, getting dirty, building clubhouses, as well as the problems they face (directly or indirectly related to "It") made me miss my childhood and long for it. The Losers Club isn't comprised of people who grew up to be perfect; their flaws and strengths are relatable, likeable, and easy to identify with. The bond between them is what struck me the most; even though they forgot a lot of the things that happened in '58 the strength of the group was still there, and their love and devotion to one another showed so well almost 3 decades later. The camaraderie they shared made me appreciate those close friends of mine even more and miss the ones I haven't seen in years. Their relationship made me mourn for the past, be glad for the present, and look forward to the future in a sense.
The pages upon pages upon pages of character development might bore some readers, and that's OK if it's not (your) cup of tea. But my take was the realization that the more you know about a person, the more you find yourself becoming attached and forging a friendship. In today's world, where despite the advent of social media and all kinds of easy ways to keep in touch yet more people report feeling isolated and alone, it's a big wake-up call. The more we get to know someone, the easier it is to slip into their shoes and see what life is like for them, creating empathy and love.Towards the end, when the 4 remaining Losers walk through a mirrored door and Bev, for an instant, sees the two that have died (Stan and Eddie) with them, I cried real tears. Don't judge me, I'm not made of stone!
JMO...
Because it's awesome!
Ok, not much of an answer, but the pure horror of it and insanely good writing is why I love it!
It's like you want to read it, then you do, then wonder why you read it and why did you even finish it, then why did it end, why can't you feel your legs or hands, wonder if you will be able to sleep and if you will ever read a better book than "It" — feelings all at the same time.
Ok, not much of an answer, but the pure horror of it and insanely good writing is why I love it!
It's like you want to read it, then you do, then wonder why you read it and why did you even finish it, then why did it end, why can't you feel your legs or hands, wonder if you will be able to sleep and if you will ever read a better book than "It" — feelings all at the same time.
U could say several things like coming of age, readers remembering youth and how fun it was with ur friends growing up, the clown ECT. But what it comes down to is the writing. King was masterful with it. Just nailed it