Pennywise 1990 Vs 2017 A Terrifying Comparison
The 1990 miniseries version of IT featured Tim Curry as Pennywise the Dancing Clown, while the 2017 film adaptation brought Bill Skarsgård to the role. Both are based on Stephen King's novel, but they approach the character very differently. I've watched both versions multiple times over the years and there are some genuinely interesting differences worth examining. Tim Curry's Pennywise is more theatrical and vaudevillian. He plays the clown as a performing act, leaning heavily into charm and showmanship. The makeup is practical effects - foam latex prosthetics and contacts. Curry delivers lines with a sharp, almost musical cadence that makes him feel like a stand-up comedian who just decided to murder children. Some viewers find this approach scarier because it feels more grounded in a recognizable reality. A clown actually could perform like that. Bill Skarsgård's Pennywise operates on a completely different wavelength. The movement patterns are jerky, unnatural, almost insectile. His smile stretches wider than a human face should allow. The makeup uses heavy digital enhancement layered over practical applications. Skarsgård reportedly spent months developing the physicality of the character, including studying animal movements and creating a distorted vocal pattern. The result is something that feels alien rather than human.
I ran into an issue trying to create a frame-by-frame comparison chart for a project. The aspect ratios between the 1990 and 2017 versions are completely different. The original is 1.33:1 standard television format, while the remake is 2.39:1 cinematic widescreen. Simply placing them side by side created massive black bars and wasted space. I ended up using FFmpeg to crop and scale both versions to a common resolution before exporting the comparison clips. It took about forty-five minutes for a ten-minute sequence. The tone difference between the two versions is significant. The 1990 version plays more like a supernatural thriller with horror elements. The scares tend to be conventional - jump cuts, music stings, andreveal moments. The 2017 version commits harder to body horror and psychological dread. Andy Muschietti's direction emphasizes unease through lingering shots and sound design rather than traditional scare tactics. One thing most people miss when comparing these versions is how much the running time affects pacing. The 1990 miniseries runs roughly seven hours across two parts. That gives the story room to breathe and develop the Losers Club members individually. The 2017 film compresses everything into two and a half hours. As a result, Pennywise appears less frequently but each appearance carries more weight. The demon spends more time lurking in the shadows rather than confronting the children directly in early scenes.
The practical effects in the 1990 version age surprisingly well for what they are. Curry's transformation sequences use in-camera tricks and mechanical puppets that still hold up on a technical level. The 2017 version relies on CGI for most of the bigger set pieces, particularly the ending battle. Some of those sequences look impressive but others feel weightless compared to the tangible presence of Curry's performance. Neither version captures everything from King's novel. The 1990 adaptation cuts significant storylines including many of the adult timeline sequences. The 2017 film similarly compresses the narrative and removes several characters entirely. If you want the most complete Pennywise experience, reading the book remains the only real option. The scoring approaches differ too. Jerry Goldsmith composed the haunting theme for the 1990 version that remains iconic. The 2017 version features a score by Benjamin Wallfisch that incorporates distorted clown calliope music and industrial textures. Both serve their respective tones effectively.
Get the Full Details
I should mention that the 1990 version has a notoriously uneven quality across its runtime. Some episodes drag while others feel rushed. The final episode delivers the payoff but the journey there varies in intensity. The 2017 film maintains more consistent pacing throughout, though it sacrifices character development to do so. Both performances have dedicated fanbases and legitimate arguments supporting each approach. Curry brings charisma and menace in equal measure. Skarsgård creates something genuinely unsettling that lingers after viewing. The choice between them often comes down to whether you prefer your horror theatrical or psychological. Stephen King himself has expressed mixed feelings about both adaptations. He praised Curry's performance publicly while acknowledging the limitations of television production at the time. His comments on the 2017 version have been more measured, appreciating the visual ambition but noting where the film diverged from his vision.
What makes this comparison genuinely interesting is how both versions reflect the horror sensibilities of their respective eras. The 1990 version emerged from the practical effects tradition of the 80s and early 90s. The 2017 version represents modern horror's shift toward atmospheric dread and digital enhancement. Watching them back to back reveals how much the genre has evolved while the core concept remains effectively terrifying.
