Stephen King’s IT is a legendary horror novel with an unforgettable antagonist—Pennywise the Dancing Clown. Over the years, this chilling story has had two major adaptations: the 1990 television miniseries and the two-part theatrical remake, beginning with IT (2017). While the remake was celebrated for its fresh take and terrifying execution, the original has often been criticized. That leads us to ask: Was the original IT movie awful?
Let’s take a deep dive into what made the 1990 version fall short, what worked in the 2017 remake, and why fans and critics tend to prefer the newer adaptation.
A Brief History of IT
Before jumping into comparisons, let’s get some background. Stephen King’s novel IT, published in 1986, is a sprawling 1,100+ page tale about friendship, trauma, fear, and evil. It follows the Losers’ Club—a group of kids in the fictional town of Derry, Maine—who confront a shape-shifting, child-eating entity that most often appears as a clown.
The 1990 Miniseries
The original IT adaptation was a made-for-TV miniseries directed by Tommy Lee Wallace. It aired in two parts on ABC and starred Tim Curry as Pennywise. Despite Curry’s now-iconic performance, the miniseries received mixed reactions. It had moments of brilliance but was hampered by production limitations, questionable acting, and a less-than-terrifying tone.
The 2017 Remake
Fast forward to 2017, and director Andy Muschietti brings IT back to the big screen in a big way. With a higher budget, stronger visuals, a committed young cast, and Bill Skarsgård’s eerie take on Pennywise, IT quickly became one of the most successful horror films of all time.
So, why was the original IT movie seen as bad, and what made the remake so much better? Let’s break it down.
What Made the Original IT Feel Underwhelming?
1. Made-for-TV Restrictions
The 1990 version was created for a television audience and subject to network censorship. That meant no graphic violence, no foul language, and limited scare factor. Unfortunately, these are crucial components of effective horror—especially in a Stephen King story like IT.
TV in the ‘90s just couldn’t capture the raw horror that King wrote about.
2. Low Production Value
From budget constraints to poor special effects, the miniseries struggled to bring IT to life. The creature transformations looked awkward, and some of the supernatural horror lost its bite due to clunky visuals. Even in the climactic scenes, many viewers found themselves laughing at what should’ve been terrifying moments.
3. Inconsistent Tone
Was it a drama? A horror? A coming-of-age story? The 1990 version tried to be all three—but failed to balance them effectively. Some scenes felt like heartfelt drama while others were unintentionally campy. This tonal inconsistency kept the viewer from being fully immersed in the horror.
4. Pacing and Storytelling
Covering such a large book in a limited runtime is always a challenge. The miniseries often rushed important moments and dragged in less impactful ones. The two-part format, jumping between the Losers as kids and adults, made it hard for viewers to connect with the characters emotionally.
5. Mixed Acting Performances
While Tim Curry gave a standout performance as Pennywise, many of the adult actors delivered flat or melodramatic performances. Their lack of chemistry and emotional depth detracted from the storytelling and made some of the dramatic scenes unintentionally funny.
What Did the Original IT Do Right?
To be fair, the 1990 version wasn’t all bad. There are a few redeeming qualities that still hold nostalgic value today:
-
Tim Curry’s Pennywise: His portrayal was eerie, charismatic, and unforgettable. For many, he is Pennywise.
-
Nostalgic Charm: For fans who watched it as kids, the miniseries holds sentimental value despite its flaws.
-
Staying True to the Book: In some respects, the 1990 version stuck closer to King’s original themes and structure than the remake.
But unfortunately, these strengths weren’t enough to outweigh the overall weaknesses.
Why the 2017 Remake Was a Game-Changer
Now let’s talk about the 2017 remake of IT—a film that succeeded in almost every way the original struggled.
1. Cinematic Horror Without Limits
The remake wasn’t made for TV—it was made for the big screen, and that came with a much higher production budget and freedom from censorship. The result? Visceral scares, intense visuals, and a tone that could go all-in on psychological and body horror.
2. Terrifyingly Beautiful Visuals
The special effects in the remake were top-tier. From Pennywise’s glowing eyes and unnatural movements to the horrifying hallucinations experienced by the kids, every scene was crafted to scare—and it worked.
The house on Neibolt Street, the creepy painting in Stan’s room, and Georgie’s tragic scene in the storm drain were all brilliantly executed with a mix of CGI and practical effects.
3. Stronger Character Development
Unlike the original, the 2017 remake focused solely on the Losers’ Club as kids, allowing more time for viewers to connect with them individually. Each character had depth, unique fears, and well-acted scenes that built genuine emotional connections.
Richie’s humor, Beverly’s resilience, and Bill’s grief made them real and relatable—something the miniseries didn’t quite achieve.
4. Bill Skarsgård’s New Take on Pennywise
While Tim Curry’s clown was creepy and playful, Skarsgård’s Pennywise was something else entirely—inhuman, ancient, and deeply unsettling. His drooling, eye-wandering, childlike voice combined with sudden bursts of violence made for a much scarier villain.
5. Great Direction and Sound Design
Andy Muschietti directed the film with a strong sense of pacing, suspense, and timing. The jump scares weren’t just cheap tricks; they were well-planned and earned. The film also used music and silence effectively to build dread in the audience.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Feature | 1990 Miniseries | 2017 Remake |
|---|---|---|
| Format | 2-part TV miniseries | Theatrical film |
| Rating | TV-14 equivalent | R (more freedom with horror content) |
| Pennywise Actor | Tim Curry | Bill Skarsgård |
| Special Effects | Outdated and limited | Modern, high-quality CGI and effects |
| Tone | Inconsistent | Consistent and chilling |
| Character Development | Shallow for most characters | Deep and well-paced |
| Faithfulness to Book | Reasonably faithful | Some liberties, but emotionally true |
| Scare Factor | Mild or unintentionally funny | Genuinely terrifying |
Final Thoughts: Was the Original IT Movie Awful?
The 1990 version of IT wasn’t awful by definition—it was simply limited by the tools and standards of its time. It tried to adapt an ambitious and complex novel with minimal resources, and in many ways, it succeeded for a TV movie. But when held up against the 2017 remake, it’s clear that the newer version had the tools, talent, and freedom to truly bring Stephen King’s terrifying vision to life.
So, was the original IT movie awful? Not completely. But compared to the remake, it definitely feels dated, tame, and uneven.
Final Verdict
The 2017 IT remake doesn’t just benefit from better tech—it benefits from better storytelling, acting, visuals, and direction. It takes the haunting story of Pennywise and the Losers’ Club and elevates it into something truly terrifying and emotionally resonant.
For diehard Stephen King fans or those curious about cinematic history, the original is still worth a watch. But for pure horror, emotional connection, and a modern masterpiece of adaptation, the remake is where IT truly shines.
