Writing and cinema are two completely different forms of art with different advantages and disadvantages. Can a book like "IT" transfer the reasons why its awesome to a different form of art? Here are two reasons why i believe it cannot
1)A writer can explain the motives and pcycology of the heros in a way the film cannot. In a film when someone attacks with a knife its just that. In the book though the writer can explain the motives and the thinking of the heros. This is important because the book is not about the clown but about the seven central characters. The clown plays a more peripheral role. In the movie no matter how good the actors are, in the end the children are not protagonists and its all about the clown. To say it otherwise the difference is between just seeing the highlights of the game and seeing all the game. Since a film cannot explain the pcycology of the characters we will focus on the parts the clown attacks the kids(the highlights of the film)
2)A book guides your imagination but a film controls it. A book might describe a house and everyone has his mind a different house(perhaps his own). A film cannot describe anything and you see the house the director had its in his mind. This is very important in a storyline like that because you have two paralel stories(the child and the adult). In the books i am 100% persuaded that child Ben and adult Ben are the same person. You are incapable of seeing him age but you can feel it and accept it naturally. One of the reasons why the adult part of the first film failed is because i never managed to convince myself that children and adults are the same persons becuase, you know, they werent. Different people, different ways of acting in the end i could never manage to convince myself that child Bev and adult Bev were the same person just because both actresses had red hair
In the end the movie might be better compared to the 1990 film but it will still fail to capture the best parts of the book
1)A writer can explain the motives and pcycology of the heros in a way the film cannot. In a film when someone attacks with a knife its just that. In the book though the writer can explain the motives and the thinking of the heros. This is important because the book is not about the clown but about the seven central characters. The clown plays a more peripheral role. In the movie no matter how good the actors are, in the end the children are not protagonists and its all about the clown. To say it otherwise the difference is between just seeing the highlights of the game and seeing all the game. Since a film cannot explain the pcycology of the characters we will focus on the parts the clown attacks the kids(the highlights of the film)
2)A book guides your imagination but a film controls it. A book might describe a house and everyone has his mind a different house(perhaps his own). A film cannot describe anything and you see the house the director had its in his mind. This is very important in a storyline like that because you have two paralel stories(the child and the adult). In the books i am 100% persuaded that child Ben and adult Ben are the same person. You are incapable of seeing him age but you can feel it and accept it naturally. One of the reasons why the adult part of the first film failed is because i never managed to convince myself that children and adults are the same persons becuase, you know, they werent. Different people, different ways of acting in the end i could never manage to convince myself that child Bev and adult Bev were the same person just because both actresses had red hair
In the end the movie might be better compared to the 1990 film but it will still fail to capture the best parts of the book