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

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

Posted by

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 The outdated special effects in particular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!


  1. 99% of the people are not scared of the 1990 IT Movie
    1% (me) Bro its the past many people, the programming is super old and not good so dont complain about the past

  2. The older IT is better than the newer one by far. It's more funnier and better acting then the newer one. The newer one isn't funny at all just completely stupid. Tim Curry ?

  3. Who cares which IT movie is more scarier. It's more about the acting actually. The older IT was better acting and more realistic then the Newer IT. Fucking newer IT is pissing me off cause when I look up Stephen King movies it shows the new IT movie instead of the 1990 one

  4. As an 8 year old kid in 1990, this clown was creepy af but for some reason i never was scared about it.
    Up until 1990, clowns were supposed to bring joy and entertainment to kids offering balloons and smiles; seeing as a kid that a clown can be a psychopathy and murders children; that's disturbing. You start to feel creeped out about seeing clowns in bday parties and not knowing who that was. I particularly rather than fearing the clowns, felt a weird fascination for them. Like the idea of being mysterious. /// as I got into my adolescence, evil clowns like "curly man" and this character, started to appeal to me; the paradox of this character being 'an evil clown' as clown word in itself is used to describe people who act silly and make others laugh.
    2017's pennywise i find rather creepy. For some reason evil/possessed dolls always were creepier to me. To this version being a combination of many subjects of evil in the past such as dolls, clowns, entities, slashers, creatures who feed on fear and evil babies, include all those elements that have been used to creep us out in horror/thrillers/slashers/scary movies in the past 3 decades is the epitome of evil and horror.
    One have to agree wether we prefer Curry's or Skarsğård's penny; this concept for 'it' 2017's was very well thought out and was reincarnated very very well by its actor.

    One can argue that for the 90's it was very scary (which it was) and that the current one is creepier or not, but both took different approaches to the portrayal of the character, to me, both did great. Both amazing.
    Some even say Curry Made the chatacter, yes, an evil clown. But the book describe it as an entity, then also Skarsğård's approach to the character is pretty well portrayed.

  5. I personally find the sewer scene from Skarsğård 100% better. Than the 90's version.
    The psychological tension that takes place is flawless.
    The many powers that creature has to lure its victims shows the evilness it is and how rootless it can be in order to attract and manipulate its victims ("can you smell the circus georgie?" Circus misic in the background, the voices of children).
    I mean; wow. How he drools, how he creates empathy towards georgie (calls him by his name, asks about his brother bill "maybe i can cheer him up, i can get him a balloon" then how fast he switches to georgie "do you want a balloon too, georgie?") And as if he was concern about him ("without your boat? You can't lose your boat, Bill is gonna kill you!") And the eyes. Those eyes glowing in the dark. And the evil smile.
    He was so good in playing with georgie's sphych; showing sympathy then evilness and not making a move to gain georgie's trust, that georgie stretched his arm despite of the fear of danger. That, that was amazing.
    You can love or hate the 2017 movie and prefer 1990's, but that scene, that scene to me is inarguably one of the top 5 best horror movie scene of all times (and boy! I've watched 80% of all genre movies (including european, asian and latin America ones).

  6. TBH I just found them both funny
    Don't hate on me I found the 1990 version kinda funny (because I only watched half of it)
    and I found the 2017 version funny as well I don't know why?
    Well when I watched the 2017 I found it a little bit scary and now I'm just rewatching the clips
    and I kinda find it funny I don't know why though.

  7. No haye but it is my opinion I really like the 2017 It clown cause it’s more scarier because the 1990 It clown is not so scary

  8. The new version was $hIT. I didn't like the new Beverly Marsh storyline, the whole kiss with Ben, Beverly getting "floated" and most of the jump scares. This movie did not scare me at all. Just a lot of repeated cinematics. It's also stupid to compare the special effects. The original is almost thirty years old, with a budget of MADE FOR TV. And personally, Tim Curry's version is just plain creepy!

  9. The thing that makes me confused is why didn't beverly marsh wear a key necklace in 1990 like the remake beverly?

  10. It 2017 was boring. I would of slept during most of the 2017 movie if it wasn't for the obnoxiously loud "scary" scenes. I guess these pre millennials get scared easily by just cranking up the sound of screaming. LMAO

  11. Real horror fans know that the best kinds of horror are the ones with less CGI and more eerie music. Certain effects and music just ruins the fear of most things. The original It was scary. The remake is just creepy and typical of 2010s horror films. People who don't appreciate horror of yesterday don't appreciate horror at all.

  12. “ORIGINAL”. Are you ok bro? The time stamps are so far off, I mean, I expected people to be like ”Oh YeAh I aGRee…” when you know they don’t. This is too unrealistic to compare!!! And just because Tim curry plays the dancing clown, pennywise, it doesn’t mean that overall, 1990 IT was a good movie. But I’m not even joking, comment section, ya’ll went past the line. I MEAN WHAT THE HECK DO YOU MEAN- ”ThE qUAlIty iS gO000dddd”, when you know it’s not. ITS 1990. JUST BECAUSE ITS “original” THAT DOESNT MEAN ITS OFF THE BAT, THE BEST MOVIE. THATS WHY THEY HAD A FRICKING REMAKE!!

  13. PRO 2017 VERSION :
    This guy forgot to say that in the 2017 version we actually see Pennywise biting Georgie's arm off and we have the scene in Bill's basement with Pennywise looking out of the water like an alligator before he starts running in that funny CGI towards Bill and then he starts to slither away like a snake

    Also about the scene in which Pennywise takes Stan out of the circle: that also exists in the 2017 version!!! we have Pennywise luring Stan with Beverly's voice and then he starts chewing on his face before the others find him

    Also I find the projector scene scarier than the book one because I think that it also implies that IT can be anyone close to them by seeing Bill's mother turn into Pennywise

    PRO 1990 VERSION:

    Tim Curry played a good Pennywise

    They presented a little bit more about Ben by having IT transform into his father

    Even I consider that being stuck in a shower with a clown is scarier than one taunting you

  14. Tim Curry had personality and the new one didn't. More jumpscares and a scarier costume doesn't necessarily equate to an interesting character with depth.

  15. The entire 1990 version of IT was scarier than ITs 2017 counterpart.

    The 2017 version of IT wasn't scary at all.

  16. To this day I still find the scene of Georgie’s old photo winking at Bill creepy and unsettling. I remember jumping when I saw the miniseries for the first time. I was just a little kid when I first saw the 1990 It.

  17. I found that when Georgie's hand ripped off and when the pennywise from projector is the scariest scenes in all IT movies.

  18. Wait does any one realize this guy voices genderless child in the series "if undertale was realistic"

  19. In 1990 Beverly could’ve ran away but she didn’t which is stupid, in 2017 Beverly couldn’t run away because she was caught in a bunch of strings, sooooo 1990 IT movie is crappy…

  20. The actors in the new version just don't seem as genuinely scared as the original… n imo not one actor in the new version could replace the original actor … n who the hell thought that guy was a solid replacement for Henry Bowers !!

  21. the 90's version was scarier because of subtly…they never over did it with pennywise. each kids story has its own "monster" which is developed better. the new pennywise is spastic and thats all. spastic movements and lunging at people isnt terribly frightening to me. the new it had better production value but 90's version was way better….i was totally disappointed when i finally sat down to watch. scary clown is the entire premise of the new movie

  22. I find it hard for me to get scared especially when the new pennywise looks like a fuckin Disney princess and mumbles everytime he talks.

  23. Difference of 2017 and 1990:

    Billy: No change really
    Richie: doesn’t swear
    Eddie: not that germaphobic
    Stan: less scared
    Beverly: more in love with Bill in 1990
    Mike: no change really
    Ben: no change really

  24. Millenials think more blood is scarier and no, it's more the psychological side of it, it's supposed to make u think , for example the shining, technically it's not that scary but it's those doubts that make you feel that's scary

  25. I think Stan's first encounter with It is also creepier and unpleasant in the mini series than in the new movie, and also is closer to the book.

  26. I'll never take a shower at my school. Again right now im scared that pennywise would eat my hand…..

  27. It 2017 was boring like Jaws. ??? 1990 was more fun cuz it was mofe funny and had more scenes and it wasn't just outside town like 2017, it was at school well and pennywise house.

  28. Tim curry was really good but he really doesn't compare to the legend bill skarsgard. Also all u people answer this
    Which pennywise was better?

  29. I think I will always prefer older horror movies. The 80s/90s did it better. They perfectly capture the art of psychological horror. Newer movies go for shock value and jump scares. But by the time the movie is over, you’re left forgetting why you were ever scared in the first place. But older movies are able to make little imprints on your mind that leave you looking over your shoulder, and make you feel like a little kid again

  30. The new ones pretty good as far as remakes go in the modern era, of which there are almost zero good ones, but the time restraints are unfortunate, at least its getting a grand total of a little over 4 hours so thats certainly a heck of alot better then just 2 hours or so, but still how long was the original over 6 hours right? so they shoulda made each part if not 3 hours pretty damn close.

  31. Beating and fighting It with a ritual more then a classic fight woulda made alot more sense if that's from the novel they shoulda kept that part, its seems It is if not an "Alien" likely a supernatural entity a demon/fallen angel etc so itd make sense that theyd need to get rid of it using unconventional means.

  32. I prefer the new one. The way IT was portrayed was more on tone and believable. It didn't matter that it had a bigger budget, the attention to detail in that film thanks to the directors passion makes the movie practically art.

  33. Yeah. A clown reaching his hand out of a book is scarier then a flashing seizure album with the demonic clown slowly coming out as a giant creature chasing the losers down and nearly grabbing beverly.

  34. I think that Tim Curry did a better job purely because he fits the way that Pennywise hunts.

    Tim curry's clown looks fairly normal and wouldn't raise many eyebrows if he was walking around a funfair, however Bill Skarsgård's clown looks so unapproachable that any child in their right mind would be terrified and would try to avoid him at all costs.

    In 1990's scene Georgie is amused (if a little confused) by the way Pennywise acts and speaks (until the end of course) but in 2017 you can see the fear and reluctance in Georgie's eyes, one wrong move or sound out of Pennywise and georgie would likely have bolted and forgotten about the boat, I understand that Pennywise feeds on fear, but it's no use scaring your prey so much that they run away, that kind of beats the purpose.

    Don't get me wrong, Skarsgård is awesome, but Tim Curry is the father of the role and always will be.

  35. I’m sorry but 1990 it kept me awake at night for years it was definitely scary for its time. And it’s more sinister whereas the new is more genericly scary

  36. If you didn’t find the original movie scary, that’s probably because you just seen it, as an adult, and you shouldn’t comment
    When I was a kid this movie was terrifying
    Tim Curry is a WAY better then Bill

  37. Old it was a lot more eerie and unsettling. The new one is boring and the clown looks cheesy af. The acting of Tim Curry was spot on. The new it actor just thinks he scare because we feared his predecessor.

Leave a Reply

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