1

Vladyslav Bilyy
Prof. Peter Fields
English Composition II
12-09-2018
The Fallacy of Remix Shaming

The argument of “nothing is better than the original” is all too prevalent amidst

critics of virtually anything, anywhere in the world. It’s heard in conversations

concerning the latest reimaging of a film, to the great literary pieces reattempted and

reworked by contemporary writers. This argument is pure fallacy that is more often used

as hipster braggadocio about what one has read and less about the true complexity of

contemporary remixes. The 2017 Andy Muschietti rendition of the classic horror novel

IT is a perfect example of the contradiction to said argument, specifically when compared

to the original IT film that preceded it, in 1990. Before their juxtaposition, however, one

must understand what makes these films so important. In fact, both the original and the

2017 remix are very rare works in the world of horror. Yet, even though both are classics,

even the snidest critic can see that the 2017 remix is leagues ahead in production,

narrative, and acting than its 1990 original version.

First of all, lets take a look at horror genre itself and how it is beneficial to

viewers’ mental processes, in that the slow-build challenges to stay mentally sharp

throughout the film. In Gulf New’s article, “Horror Films: An Intelligent Taste” the

author concludes that being able to handle fear in films helps one cope with the emotion

better in real-life scenarios. Yet today, horror moviegoers are not gaining the
 2

aforementioned skill, instead, they are being farmed for stimuli. Specifically, in

contemporary horror films, there a single prevailing trait that has become parasitic on

audience stimuli and counter-productive to the benefits gained from these films, a tactic

known as the “Jump Scare.” If one takes a journey through the history of horror film, the

classic films that come to mind are along the lines of The Exorcist, and the other Stephen

King inspired film, The Shinning. The unique trait both of these films have, and both

versions of IT have, is the use of “smart horror”(Huda Tabrez). “Smart horror” builds the

world, uses environmental storytelling, and the now rare element in horror films, dread,

to frighten its viewers. Moviegoers will always remember the character of Jack Torrance

sinking into homicidal madness in The Shinning, but try to ask a viewer what scared them

in the most recent Insidious sequel and they will be lost amidst the fifty times something

jumped out and triggered their central nervous system. The 2017 rendition of IT thrives

in its use of Shining-esque horror, and is another reason it pushes ahead of the 1990

version, as the original did not quite attain that same sense of “smart horror” build.

Besides the framework of the story, that's the two films’ only comparative

property. The most obvious difference is immediately noticeable in the production

quality of the films. The first attempt at putting Pennywise the clown on silver screen was

done in 1990, and needless to say many advancements have been made in the world of

cinematography since then. Take the scene when the “Losers Club” is reading a book

about the clown in the original, and very awkwardly, Pennywise’s hand starts to reach to

them from inside of the book. Since the scene used early and poor practical effects, it was
 3

met with snickers from audiences. The 2017 remix also has a scene that starts oddly

funny, but playing on that feeling of security, quickly turns nightmarish. That specific

scene is when the children reach the sewer home of Pennywise and witness him start

doing a carnivalesque dance. Using CGI the monster’s routine slowly turns more and

more hellish and horrific as fire explodes behind him and the room seeming contorts

outside of reality. Using advanced production technologies like this created instances

where the audience began building that feeling of dread from the false sense of safety that

“smart horror” succeeds at.

Speaking of dread, one can’t talk about IT without noting the iconic scenes in the

story. In the book, the story truly starts when Georgie, the little brother of one of the

main protagonists, is chasing his paper boat down the road in a heavy rain. The gutters of

the streets carry the ship almost purposefully down the maze of streets, away from the

safety of his home. After a short time the small boat falls into a sewer drain, and it is

there that the little boy meets the antagonist of the story, as well as his untimely demise.

The 2017 film is near identical in capturing that vision, and to be fair, so does the 1990

adaptation, albeit with a rather poor production quality. Anyone who had read the book

knew there was no way the director of the original would be allowed to show the scene of

Georgie’s demise at the hands of the clown, due to how extremely graphic that scene is in

the book. After all, it was a made-for-television film. This means his death was

something viewers had to picture for themselves. In the 2017 remix, however, every

detail readers had described to them was shown on the screen. The little boy who is the
 4

symbol of innocence and safety reaches for his boat in the sewer, to which Pennywise

responds by biting of his arm and dragging him into the darkness of his home. By

realizing these never before seen scenes, is another way the remix smashes past its

original counterpart.

The said home of Pennywise is another aspect wherein the 2017 film improves on

the original film’s vision. In the 1990 adaptation the sewers are just that, plain sewers.

The clown just uses them as his hideout and travel network. In the 2017 film, nothing

could be further from the truth. While Pennywise certainly uses the sewers to move

around, the way his home is reimagined is more akin to a circle of hell from The Devine

Comedy than an actual sewer. On that same logic, the way the original film encapsulated

Pennywise was a disservice to Stephen King’s work. While Tim Curry did a fantastic job

playing a scary clown, that's all he was. Pennywise is not a killer clown; it’s only a form

that a paranormal creature assumes. The 2017 remix does a fantastic job embodying the

ancient evil that the character is supposed to be. Betsy Dickens of newplainsreview.com

put it perfectly, “Tim Curry’s Pennywise as a kid; he terrified me. I obviously got over

that fear the second I saw him in a corset and fishnets in the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

I experienced Bill Skarsgård’s Pennywise as a 22-year-old woman and was afraid to

drive home alone afterward.” This superior acting performance by Bill Skarsgård is yet

another way the remix succeeds over its predecessor.

Despite how well the 2017 film succeeds in capturing that important horror

history of the past, what is most interesting is just how well the character relationships
 5

were. The story of IT isn’t simply a story of a menace terrorizing the town, in fact, it is

even more a coming of age story. “The Losers Club” is a group of kids, all often picked

on, that create a friendship over this shared suffering, and eventually over the common

enemy that is Pennywise. The 1990 film merely focused on the clown, and what a failure

that is to the original vision of the work. In the original movie, the children would only

get together to converse about IT, or fill the air with minor dialogue to get them to the

next scene. The recent 2017 adaptation does not make the same mistake, and even

succeeds in making some of the most memorable, and more importantly, believable

dialog and humor seen in the world of cinema. Conversations are humorous, and may

even make one forget they are watching a horror film. Its real, genuine dialog viewers

can imagine a group of close friends having.

The common counter argument by anti-remix viewers is that the new film fails to

capture the “leave it to the viewers imagination” concept the original film succeeded in.

The fact is, that wasn't intentional, and was simply a showcase of the 1990 limitations the

film suffered. The new film suffers no such limitations, and is structured with intention.

Anything the director wishes for the viewer to infer, they place in the film, otherwise

they use mentally twisting visuals that go further in complexity than even the most insane

imaginations. The fact is, IT is a showcase of “smart horror” and the new film is all the

concepts that construct a masterpiece horror film. It succeeds in things that the original

film wished it could have in 1990, and even excels in things that the original text failed at
 6

accomplishing. IT (2017) is the model of what a remix should be, it copies, remixes, and

combines.

In a world where even children are getting subgenre of horror, rightfully named

children’s horror including films such as ParaNorman, Frankenweenie, and Hotel

Transylavania, it’s important now more than ever to return to the roots of “smart

horror”. Using tricks like “Jump Scares” does nothing but cheapen the experience of

horror films. Frankly utilizing these tactics is just as wrong as believing that simply

because something is a remix its automatically worse than an original work. By

transforming an original work through better production quality, realization of key

scenes, and utilizing phenomenal actors, even a remix can soar past its original

predecessor.
 7

Annotated Bibliography

Dickens, Betsy, and Mario. “5 Reasons It (2017) Is Better Than Stephen King's It
(1990).” New Plains Review, 1 Nov. 2017.

This article examines and explains the 5 reasons why the 2017 version of Stephen King’s
it better than the 1990 version. The author looks into the subjects of production quality,
humor, iconic scenes, the clown itself, and references to make its argument. It presents
the case that the 1990 version failed these categories when compared to the new film.

The article gives clear and concise reasons for why the new film is better than its
predecessor. It also utilizes examples either through text or with pictures to explain in
even greater detail the 1990 film’s shortcomings or the 2017 version’s points of
excellence. This article is one of the key references for reasons the remix is better than
the original.

Hayson, Sam. “7 Key Differences between the 'IT' Movie and Stephen King's
Novel.” Mashable, Mashable, 15 Sept. 2017,

This article goes into the reasons why the new film is worse than the 1990 version and
the original book. It offers counter-arguments to the believers who state the new film is
better than the 1990 predecessor. It relies on missed references and diminished roles from
the new movie to make its primary points, for example, portraying Patrick Hocksetter as
a minor role versus the book’s psychopath vision.

This article is a little ridiculous in its expectation that a one thousand three hundred page
book is supposed to be fit in a mere couple hours running movie. Utilizes great examples
that help to understand just how lucky viewers are that the obtuseness and insanity of the
1990 film and specifically the book don't make it into the 2017 film. This article helped
formulate the counter-argument to the belief that a remix can be better than the original.

Lester, Catherine. (2016). The Children's Horror Film: Characterizing an 'Impossible'

Subgenre. Velvet Light Trap, 78(78), 22-37.

This article aims to explain the success of the horror genre by stating that even though the
relationship between children and horror is tense, movie with horror concepts are still
being developed for them. It continues by giving a brief history starting at 1980 that
shows proof of the existence of the subgenre of children’s horror films. The conclusion
states that the subgenre walks a strict line of both being child friendly and full of lessons,
yet fraught with horror based imagery and concepts like monsters, darkness, etc.

It is a very analytical piece on the existence of horror in children’s films. It clearly and
successfully achieves explaining the history of the subgenre and going into what it means
for horror film. The article helps establish the importance of the horror genre, in that even
children have a version of what is seeming anti-children.
 8

Muschietti, Andy, director. IT. Warner Bros., 2017.

The 2017 version of the original work by Stephen King titled IT. The first part of a two-
part journey that tells the story of the “Losers Club”, a group of kids united in friendship
and under a common enemy. The film Is made up of two intervening story threads, the
day to day life of the club and the battle with the ancient evil known as IT.

IT (2017) is a fantastic film that skims some of the unbelievable parts of the original text
as well as improves on the 1990 film. It achieves the latter by upping its production
quality, recruiting fantastic actors, improving the writing, and executing its vision with
nary a fault. Being as this is the film that is being lent the support throughout the paper, it
is a crucial piece.

King, Stephen. IT. Hodder, 2017.

The book Stephen King bases wrote and both films are based off of. Tells the 2 part tale
of the small fictional cursed town of Derry, Maine, where a group of kids make a “Losers
Club” to combat the insurmountable evils of the place. In the first part the group battles
the ancient evil and defeats it, only to be called back years later to find out that IT has
returned to Derry.

A phenomenal, yet lengthy horror story, that makes the reader truly believe in the
nightmarish creature known as IT. The book only suffers in its amount of evil characters
outside of IT. While it is explained that the creature taints those around itself, it still gives
no clear explanation for why the people don't just leave the horrid place. The book serves
as reference material when comparing both IT films.

Tabrez, Huda. “Horror Films: An Intelligent Taste.” Gulf News, 31 Oct. 2018.

This article explains the concept of intelligent horror, and discourages the use of the
“Jump Scare.” It does this by explaining what the “Jump Scare” achieves in doing and the
simplicity of the concept. It differentiates the intelligent horror from “Jump Scare” horror
by showing that the latter merely feeds of surprise stimuli, while the prior evokes mental
sharpness through dread.

A well-written piece about the question of “does watching horror mean one has an
intelligent taste?” while seemingly never answering the question, it does discuss the
different types of horror film. This is used when making the case for how special the
movie IT is in the Pantheon of great horror films.

Wallace, Tommy Lee, director. Stephen King's IT. Warner Home Video, 1990.

The 1990 movie inspired by Stephen King’s book IT. The film follows a group of friends
in their battle against an evil monster named IT. Part one of two; the film utilizes 1990’s
practical effects to create scares, and the talent of Tim Curry to embody the titular
monster.
 9

While the film is a classic in the eyes of many a horror movie fan, it fails on many fronts
if viewed in comparison to its 2017 remix. Using dated production equipment, not being
able to construct some of the more mature iconic scenes due to TV censors, and
absolutely missing the coming of age story arc that is so integral to the story, the movie
stands as one of the most overhyped works today. This film is used to compare the 2017
iteration to.