Maybe it’s because they haven’t really advertised the fact, or maybe it’s because it’s all coming from one book, but I didn’t realize until this last weekend that I’m going to have to put up with twice as many evil clowns in the coming years than I had initially anticipated. Every horror fan knows that Hollywood’s taking a second crack at Stephen King’s It this Fall. It’s based one of King’s most popular novels and the trailer for it looks fantastic. What hasn’t been broadcast, however, is that September’s adaptation is only going to be the first of two movies to take on King’s tale of cannibalistic clowns stalking the children of Derry.
Buried in the fine print of the movie’s publicity is the fact that It is getting split into two part. The first part, coming out this year, takes place in the late-fifties. The second will be set twenty-seven years later in the mid-eighties. Some sources even list this year’s installment as It: Part 1 — The Loser’s Club, which is incidentally missing from all the film’s marketing thus far.
I know I can’t be the only one sick and tired of movie studios splitting single books into multiple movies. Ever since the two Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, it seems like every movie that can get away with it is trying their hand at the strategy. It was bad enough when “original” series, like The Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean were squeezing us for twice the ticket price, but now we have to put up with double-features for Breaking Dawn and Mockingjay too. They somehow turned The Hobbit — a briskly-paced children’s book — into a nearly 8-hour trilogy (even longer, if you watch the Extended Editions). Allegiant‘s promised Part 2 got cancelled before it even made it to theaters.
But for It, the decision to divvy up the 1,000+ page novel into multiple parts makes perfect sense. The book is practically a sequel unto itself, following the same group of friends in their debatably successful attempts to destroy the clown-faced monster terrorizing their home town over the course of two different time periods: once when they’re kids and once as adults. The two halves of the story have no more in common one another than any other pair of stories and even its first adaptation took the form of a two-part mini-series. Given its prodigious length and ambitious, life-spanning scope, it only makes sense to divide the story into more manageable pieces.
Roy Lee, the film’s producer, even admits that “it’s being envision as two films,” with the second part being “from the point of view of the adults.” It will allow them to focus on the intimate scares and characterizations that King’s work is known for while leaving most of the novel’s content in-tact. It’s the best of both worlds, assuming that they can strike gold with it twice in a row: something that the 1990 mini-series failed miserably at.
The fact that there seems to be no immediate plans for the promised sequel is disconcerting, especially with Allegiant‘s recent failure still lingering like bile in the back of our throats. King’s novels might be popular, but his movies are a mixed bag: running the gamut from Oscar nominees to Razzie contenders. And although you can often get by with bottom-tier talents for increasingly producer-driven horror movies, the director of Mama and the writer of Annabelle doesn’t inspire the most confidence in the project.
Right now, all I can say is that they appear to at least be making the right decisions — at least on the surface — for this movie. Splitting it half makes sense for the peculiar animal that is It. Everything we’ve seen advertised looks good so far, and King’s dark imagination has born the fruits of nightmares time and time again. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Follow Us
