Read 1031 times

  • Aristocrat
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1537

    • November 10, 2014, 01:04:27 pm
Old Pennywise vs. New Pennywise, who is scarier?
« on: November 20, 2017, 02:33:07 pm »
Having watched the original and remake, I'm particularly keen on discussing the changes they made to Pennywise.

I remember watching the original as a kid, a few years after it's release, I must've been about 7. Pennywise was absolutely terrifying to me back then. These days, it isn't scary at all, but I can at least recognise what it is that made Pennywise scary and how the changes in the remake stack up.

I'll admit, I didn't read the book, I'm not prepared to invest the time to read 1138pgs for something unless it has massive appeal to me. I do know enough to know that the remake attempts to be truer to the novel than the original movie. Anyways, I don't want to discuss the movies too much, just Pennywise.

Old Pennywise:

I'll come out and say it, Tim Curry's Pennywise was a masterpiece. Many will say, there's nothing scary about him, no claws, disfigurement or anything, he's just a clown and at times, acts like a bit of a goofball. In a nutshell, Pennywise is 'wrong'. Listen to the music whenever Pennywise makes an appearance, it's usually a short carnival sound clips, but played out of tune and this is what makes Pennywise scary, everything about him seems normally but slightly 'out of tune':

- His hair is bright read, but mangy.
- His nose is red and bulbous, but it looks almost disgusting and not funny.
- His voice sounds like something between a friendly uncle and a damn pedophile...not always mutually exclusive.
- His teeth are normal, but rather brown and stained
- The eyes are perpetually bloodshot and make him look truly insane... or high.

Then there's Tim Curry's acting, which nails it to a tee. It's always worth noting that audiences were used to the slasher movies, during this era, Chucky, Freddy Kruger and Jason. Along comes this more bizarre and psychologically disturbing thing and it scared the sh*t outa me.

New Pennywise:

I loved the new movie, it was a bit of a rocky start, but the acting from the kids and how well it was told fully redeemed it. This time, the movie was far less corny and much more relatable. The only problem was Pennywise. I understand that they tried to be more faithful to the book this time round, particularly with the costume as Pennywise wore Victorian era clothes in the book. I can picture the costume designer of the new Pennywise and his/her vision for it. They wanted to 'modernise' Pennywise into something relatable to younger audiences. They wanted to make him scary, but still 'cool'. <---This is what ruined it for me. Added to this was casting a pretty good-looking and young chap to play the clown.

- His face is just too juvenile to take seriously
- His voice is no long creepy and menacing, it's gone up a few octaves and sounds like someone trying too hard to be
  creepy.
- The clothes look too neat and again, look more 'cool' than creepy.
- I can't think of anything else to say about him... and that in itself might be my final point.


Re: Old Pennywise vs. New Pennywise, who is scarier?
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2017, 02:52:45 pm »
I am not too big on it all, but you, and others, may find this of interest. You may have already seen it.





Re: Old Pennywise vs. New Pennywise, who is scarier?
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2017, 06:56:24 pm »
I tried watching the old 'IT" the other day and thought all the talk about it was some kind of joke, it was so bad. Really poor acting and no build up of suspense or fear. I couldn't watch further than the first episode. Salem's Lot was much scarier and better made 10 years before. The book was also poor by Stephen king's standards. I tried reading it twice but just couldn't get to the end. King is a wonderful story teller and i'm a big fan,  but in his books he makes things up as he goes along - he admits this in one of his essays - and it shows sometimes. Some of his long books should have been short stories e.g. It, Needful Things, Pet Sematary and IMO 'IT" definitely shouldn't have been made twice.


  • Aristocrat
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1537

    • November 10, 2014, 01:04:27 pm
Re: Old Pennywise vs. New Pennywise, who is scarier?
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2017, 09:36:33 pm »
I tried watching the old 'IT" the other day and thought all the talk about it was some kind of joke, it was so bad. Really poor acting and no build up of suspense or fear. I couldn't watch further than the first episode. Salem's Lot was much scarier and better made 10 years before. The book was also poor by Stephen king's standards. I tried reading it twice but just couldn't get to the end. King is a wonderful story teller and i'm a big fan,  but in his books he makes things up as he goes along - he admits this in one of his essays - and it shows sometimes. Some of his long books should have been short stories e.g. It, Needful Things, Pet Sematary and IMO 'IT" definitely shouldn't have been made twice.

Oh, the original was always bad, the acting was particularly cringey. Part 2 of the original gets worse. Still, I maintain that Pennywise was just about one of the most unsettling things to see on T.V.


Re: Old Pennywise vs. New Pennywise, who is scarier?
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2017, 09:00:54 am »
I remember watching the first one as a kid and being scared because it was a clown (something I have never really liked as a child) and because of how he would try to appeal to the characters. Freaky at the very least.

However, regarding Curry, the man is pretty damn good at acting and thats what you would expect from someone especially since many regard Rocky Horror as a great movie and gem.