Moments In The 1990 It Movie That Are Scarier Than The Remake

There are a lot of reasons why Stephen King’s
It was ripe for revival on-screen in 2017. It’d been 27 years since the last adaptation,
which is a fateful number in the story. Clowns are still pretty damn scary. And, well, the 1990 TV miniseries simply couldn’t
capture the most terrifying elements of King’s bestseller under network restrictions and
a small-screen budget. The outdated special effects in particular
have rendered certain portions of the original It film laughable, instead of frightening. Even so, there are certain scenes in the 1990
miniseries that still hold up — and are actually even scarier than the new big-screen
adaptation. The moving pictures The 2017 version of It includes a memorably
terrifying sequence in which Pennywise comes to life within a sinister slideshow, but the
1990 version of that moment is a bit eerier in some respects. Bill Denbrough is alone and still completely
grief-stricken about his brother Georgie’s funeral when he first comes into contact with
It. He skims through a book of photos, when all
of a sudden Georgie’s most recent picture winks at him…and starts oozing blood. What’s worse is that Bill’s parents are more
concerned about him not belonging in the room than finding out what he saw — or more importantly,
what they can’t see. It’s nightmarish enough not to be believed
or heard by your parents, but when they’re smearing invisible blood all over your murdered
brother’s room it’s even worse. Pennywise’s page-bouncing also comes into
play later on when the Losers look at Mike’s dad’s photo album about Derry’s many child-murder
sprees, and the town square’s carnival comes to life with a certain dancing clown at the
center. If the slow burn of him coming into closer,
full-color view isn’t scary enough, the fact that he then reaches through the page to grab
at the Losers should keep you up at night. Ben’s father The new version of It makes very little of
Ben Hanscom’s background, but the miniseries introduces a gnawing element of the story
that still works as a hair-raiser. Early on, Ben is seen traipsing through the
Barrens alone and sees his long-lost father in full military dress, standing in the swamp
and beckoning him into the sewer. The 2017 movie offers its own share of Pennywise’s
dread-inducing impressions. But the idea that Ben’s dead dad would slowly
morph into the clown like that is a kind of creepy cruelty that’s hard to forget. Beverly’s bathroom The 2017 movie does a good job of depicting
Beverly Marsh’s infamous bloody bathroom — her physical maturation is stoking fear in Beverly
and others in her life. But there’s still something extraordinarily
unsettling about the 1990 version. It’s slower, there are children’s voices crying
out to Beverly … “I’m Matthew O’Connor. We’re all the dead kids.” And once the balloon of blood explodes all
over the place, Mr. Marsh puts his hands right into the gory mess, unable or unwilling to
see what his kid sees. So, it’s a test of her squeamishness and sanity. Eddie’s shower There’s no denying that Eddie Kaspbrak’s first
encounter with It in the 2017 version is really creepy. But there’s a certain emotional vulnerability
that’s lost in translation from the first. In the first version, Eddie is being pinballed
by the adults in his life — his mother has told him not to shower at school, but his
gym teacher absolutely insists he does. Everyone else has already cleaned up by the
time Coach wins the argument, which leaves Eddie out to dry solo in the school showers
— just as they start to come to life. Mid-rinse, all the nozzles start operating
themselves and turn every spout into a scalding torture device meant to steer Eddie away from
safety just before Pennywise pays him a visit through the drain. If Psycho didn’t make you think twice about
showering away from home, here’s another scene that’ll creep into your memory at the worst
moment. Going clear The kids’ final stand against Pennywise in
the new film is incredibly similar to what goes down in the miniseries. And both ignore the novel’s very weird Ritual
of Chüd in favor of a more old-fashioned fight with It, and make their pact to come
back together if and when It returns. But despite all the faults to be found in
the camerawork, props, and visual effects, the 1990 version is still highly effective,
thanks to some key fog machine work and the attack on poor Stan. While the Losers are trying to stay together,
Pennywise already sees the weakest links in their chain and tries to make a meal out of
Stanley Uris. It’s a terrible preview of what’s to come,
and the fact that Pennywise is able to break their chain certainly undermines their sense
of strength in numbers. “I am eternal child.” The meta element One of the essential elements of the first
movie is how informative pop-culture was to the Losers’ fear. For example, within days of the group seeing
I Was a Teenage Werewolf at the Paramount theater, the group’s most entertainment-oriented
member, Richie Tozier, is chased through the school’s basement by a werewolf in a varsity
jacket. That scene speaks volumes about Stephen King’s
story and influences, as it derives from so many other scares while also informing new
nightmares all its own. “They float, Georgie. They float.” Thanks for watching! Click the Looper icon to subscribe to our
YouTube channel. Plus check out all this cool stuff we know
you’ll love, too!

94 Replies to “Moments In The 1990 It Movie That Are Scarier Than The Remake”

  1. For the kids born in the 2000s probably won’t find the 1990 one scary. I was born in 2009 and i don’t find it scary but people that watched it when it came out would find it scary

  2. Plz the 1990 IT is not even scary the jumpscares are terrible I watch the movie even my 5 year old said it's not scary this is like watching Dora the explorer

  3. IT 2017 sucked. The story, characters, and atmosphere was generic, rushed, artificial, and shallow. The entire movie is nothing but waiting for tension exxaggerated music and then some lame boo jump scare. Again and again. And they were not even good. The movie has very little replay value. If you watch it once, it feels like a chore once you see how predictable and shallow it is. The only decent character was the redhead girl who was the best character in the film. IT himself looked menacing but you didnt feel it. It was too exxaggerated and try hard. My entertainment of this film was actually how funny it was even though it tries so hard to be scary and menacing hahah. I did enjoy laughing. They couldve done much better.
    You see IT 2017 once. Nothing memorable. But its skipable film. Very disappointed. I thought itd be one of the better modern horrors. Worse disappoint since Annabelle. Give it no more than a 6.5/10

  4. There’s nothing in the mini series scarier than the remake but the mini series does have some scary things but nothing in it is scarier than the remake

  5. What the fuck the new ones better and better acting and better cast the 2017 one and 2019 one that guy needs to grow up.

  6. None of the scenes from the original or remake were scary in any capacity they’re both stupid with a dumbass non-frightening clown

  7. Am I the only person who thinks Bill Skarsgard's Pennywise is absolutely hilarious?? He makes me laugh every time I see his face. These movies are not scary in the slightest.

  8. The new movie totally missed out on being what I think Stephen King intended for the book, a monster book/movie where Pennywise is the ringleader. Gone are the mummy, Frankenstein monster, Dracula, Creature from the Black Lagoon, etc. They could've revamped the classic movie monsters into something more disturbing and horrific. I enjoyed they included the leper from the book, but how he's introduced there is way better than the movie: where he comes out from a basement window in the house on Neibolt St, looking too horrifically injured to be alive but still offering Eddie a blowjob. Even though the movie might have more blood, it's still de-fanged.

  9. Bruh I’m done with these ppl saying that the 2017 is so bad and that pennywise isn’t scary and that when we were kids we were scared shitless of the old one. First of all even as a kid I thought the old one was boring and not scary because of how the clown looked, and the acting is decent but the new pennywise is smth legendary the way he acts, gets into character the smile it’s just so much better.

  10. I watched the 1990 IT when I was 8 years old and two scenes stuck with me forever.. Pennywise in the picture book pointing at the kids and running toward them then reaching his hand through the book – and – the clown nose/blood bubble coming out of the sink and popping at Beverly. I did like the projector scene in 2017 better than the 1990 picture book, but I thought the bloody sink was waaaay overdone in the 2017 version

  11. i found nothing about the mini series scary even as a child when watching it.i found it more comedic from how corny it was.specialy Tim curry reminds me of a bad Santa version of a clown that kills.

  12. Wait…. WHAT!! the old version in the bathroom with the small bubble of blood is scary? 2017s IT was more terrifying than the old one

  13. Nah. The 1990 version wasn’t scary at all. And I watched it back then as a kid.

    It honestly doesn’t even touch the new one

  14. People act like it’s a crime to have a opinion in my opinion I find the new one more scary and creepy. The old one is scary too.

    But imma be honest don’t trust my opinion because well I’m scared of all clowns. It could be a three year old dressed in a costume and I’d still probably take off running

  15. You gotta be the stupidest of the stupid to think that the balloon popping in the 90's version was scarier than 2017's version.

  16. I’m probably not the only one who realized this but right pennywise comes back every 27 years

    1990 + 27= 2017

    IT was made in 2017

  17. People in these comment sections are forgetting that you can have an own opinion about smth. if someone says “I think the new It is better then the original” and they go like “WHAT no the original is waaaayyy better” like wtf? When someone has an opinion you can’t just be like no that’s not true or something. I mean great when you have your OWN opinion but that stays your OWN opinion. Not everyone fells the same way about certain things. Just wanted to put that out there (sry if the grammar is wrong english isn’t my main language haha)

  18. Only give me Tim Curry as Pennywise. It's not laughable. It's phenomenal. Simply because mellinials are entirely desensitized. It desn't mean the original was laughable. I despise remakes of incredible old films. I feel it is wholly unnecessary and completely unwanted.
    Watch the original alone, at 3am, and in the dark. Then tell me that it is laughable.

  19. Okay, to people who read my comment, I offer a humble trigger warning;
    Having said that, Tim Curry absolutely killed it in the 1990 miniseries. If I had to choose between him and Skarsgard, I would probably choose him, but I love the hell out of both of them.
    Their portrayals of Pennywise just give off different vibes imo.
    That said, Tim was the only thing that kept the movie afloat (pun intended); the chemistry between the child losers, while kind of cute I guess, struck me as too cheesy and an unrealistic portrayal of the losers in the book.
    In the book Bev smokes, Richie swears like a sailor, big Bill, although their friend, feels conflicted and believes he may be subconsciously using them to help exact revenge on It for George.
    Tbh, I think the miniseries losers struck me as a tad childish in a way that the reboot losers didn't.
    I find the new losers had great chemistry, and I think that making It an R-rated movie ultimately worked in their favour as far as believable interactions go.
    I like both versions, but as someone who didn't see the 1990 back in it's hayday I believe I might be less clouded by nostalgia then some others who criticize the newer versions.
    Sure, they have their flaws, and maybe Chapter 2 wasn't terrifying but I still think it did a better job and was more loyal to the books than the 1990 version.
    Just my thoughts though, no need to take me seriously.

  20. Soooo…..

    A bit of blood and a winking pic and a hand grabbing out is scarier than a projector coming to life and a Godzilla pennywise ?

    Seems like a flaw in the system

  21. The 2017 movie was not a remake. IT 1990 is a made for TV miniseries based on Stephen King's novel. IT 2017 is part 1 of a film adaptation of the same novel. IT 2017 isn't as restricted on the content as the miniseries. Do people not know what a remake is?

  22. The 2017/2019 version kinda bored me. It’s just that it’s obvious that he kills. He looks scary already so it’s kinda boring to me. But the 1990 version is a classic. It had story and it was unpredictable with the clown. He messed with their heads in ways the 2017 clown didn’t. But both versions are great. Let’s appreciate how hard people worked to make the original and the remake

  23. While im sure there where good moments in the old it but i did like the new it way better. He's way more creepy and ominously scary and the design for the remake is insanely impressive plus the actor cross eye movement and voice makes him way better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *