Hello friends.
It: Chapter Two has arrived.
And the Loser's Club is back to battle Pennywise.
How does the conclusion to this two film epic
compare to Stephen King's source novel?
I'll tell you.
But you should know that there's going to be
Pennywise level spooky spoilers in this.
(upbeat music)
For those who haven't read King's 1986 horror novel,
first, you're missing out because it's great.
Second, clear your schedule
because it's like 1400 pages long.
And third, the ending it completely bananas.
Seriously, it's nuts.
The 2017 film adaptation of It was a massive success,
both financial and critically.
And was celebrated for honoring the source material.
While the details changed greatly from page to screen,
the monsters the It chooses to appear as in the novel
are based on 1950's era horror schlock.
There's no surrealist flute lady, ew.
The themes and overall feel of the film
nailed the novel's tone.
Chapter Two, meanwhile, had a much harder task.
It's not just that watching children
battle a psychotic demon clown is a bit easier to digest.
Though the grownup versions of the Losers Club
are played beautifully by the likes of James McAvoy,
Jessica Chastain, and Bill Hader especially.
It's that the end of King's novel gets real out there.
You see, we find out that It, or Pennywise,
or the leper, or the horrifying flute lady, whatever,
is actually an alien.
She, yes she, came to Earth on a meteor,
or spacecraft, or something, it's unclear,
in primordial days of old.
Much like Larry King.
It crashed in what would eventually become Derry, Maine.
And since then It has terrorized whoever and whatever
lived on that spot for a short period every 27 to 29 years.
We see a bit of this backstory in the new film,
though the book seems to go a bit farther back in time.
But neither explore why people would continue
living in the area haunted by an extraterrestrial
shape-shifting clown demon.
I guess the foliage, probably.
Right, the foliage?
Beyond that bit of It backstory, the ultimate showdown
between the Losers Club and Pennywise
plays out quite a bit differently in the book
than in the first film.
In the book, young Bill engages the monster,
which has a true form that looks like
a gigantic spidery thing that plops out
a bunch of slimy eggs, in the Ritual of Chud.
A battle of wills that mind-melds the two
and staples their tongues together, ew.
Alone.
Though his friends are there for support.
While the Ritual of Chud is featured in Chapter Two,
and adult Bill does battle It again as a grownup,
it is quite a bit different than how
it's represented in the novel.
It should, in the novel It sends Bill
flying through the cosmos on some weird rainbow road.
Not too unlike that course from the Mario Kart games.
(whirring)
(yelling)
Oh also, there's a gigantic omniscient turtle god,
whose name is Maturin.
Who basically does nothing but watch
the Losers fight It, and offer moral support.
Then he dies, when they need him the most.
Sweet, thanks turtle bro.
Maturin is suspiciously absent from the film.
Despite a little tease in the first movie
of a turtle made of Lego.
And another tease of some turtle art in the new film.
The exclusion of Maturin as a major presence is a bit odd
considering the importance the character plays
not only in the Loser's battle with Pennywise.
But also his overall influence on the mythology
and backstory of not just It, but many other King novels.
Director Andy Muschietti has said that
there are opportunities to explore It's vast mythology.
But don't expect to see any spinoffs soon.
If they ever do happen however,
Maturin would almost certainly need to be included.
You know, 'cause he's important.
Anyway, back to the Ritual of Chud.
In the film the characters all come together
to take down It.
In the book however, Mike is stuck in a hospital bed.
And only Bill and Richie actually engage It
in the final psychic battle.
With Ben left behind to squish some eggs, ew.
The heroes ultimately win, yay.
But Eddie dies in the process.
And being such great friends,
they leave his body down in the sewers.
At least in the movie the place was collapsing.
The entire town of Derry then explodes,
as is the case for pretty much every single setting
at the end of every single Stephen King novel.
The dude's not great with endings.
A fact that the new movie actually
pokes fun at with the author's cameo.
So, you know, at least he's in on the joke.
That's a lot of weirdness.
And clearly that's hard to represent in film.
The book also includes an orgy scene
among the kid version of the characters
that the filmmakers never considered including.
Good call.
There are a number of other
notable omissions from the novel.
While Audra, Bill's wife, and Tom,
Beverly's abusive husband, are featured in the film,
their roles are significantly slimmed down from the books.
Tom and Audra both act as major catalysts
for their respective partners in opposing ways.
For a film that has a run time of over two and a half hours,
reducing such important character's roles
may leave many book readers scratching their heads.
At least we got that wonderful nod
to the novel's most terrifying sequence
involving Patrick Hockstetter and a pink fridge.
Of course adaptation is a tricky challenge.
It isn't the only novel that has a reputation
for being unfilmable, at least as a one-to-one adaptation.
Cloud Atlas, Watchmen, hell even Ulysses,
have all been translated to film,
but the end result isn't always as good as the source.
Frank Herbert's Dune was long thought
to be too sprawling and esoteric to be translated to film.
And David Lynch's 1984 adaptation was not well received,
and stripped a lot of the plot points away.
Maybe Denis Villeneuve will have better luck
with his try at it next year.
Good look topping Sting in a Speedo though.
Lengthier source material often makes
for rougher screen translations,
as do scope and more out there concepts.
King's It is one of his longest books.
In fact, it was his longest until he
re-released The Stand in 1990.
Which he didn't need to do.
And despite whatever flaws or changes made
by Andy Muschietti, the recent films are
undoubtedly a more impressive adaptation
than the 1990 mini-series.
In lots of ways, adaptation leaves creators
in a kill your darling situation.
Having to make tough decisions to edit
and cut content they may otherwise have loved to include.
It's hard to believe any work is truly unfilmable.
Heck, George R.R. Martin said he deliberately
wrote Game of Thrones to be untranslatable to film.
Look how that turned out.
But the process isn't easy.
If you think it is, let me leave you
with these horrifying 1980's animated Lord of the Rings
monstrosities that make Pennywise look like a labradoodle.
♪ Where there's a whip ♪
♪ There's a way ♪
So people who still read, how do you think
the new film compares to the novel?
Let us know in the comments right down there.
Don't forget to subscribe.
And join us here every Friday morning
for new episodes of Heat Vision Breakdown.
Boo!
No.
Pennywise, scary.
(upbeat music)