Pennywise Showdown: 2017 Vs. 1990
Hey guys, let's dive into a spooky comparison! We're talking about Pennywise, the dancing clown from Stephen King's IT. But not just any Pennywise – we're pitting the 1990 version against the 2017 remake. Both movies brought nightmares to life, but they had different styles, scares, and even actors! So, buckle up, because we're about to explore the terrifying differences and similarities between these two iconic portrayals of pure evil. Who wore the clown makeup better? Which version made you sleep with the lights on? Let's find out!
The Terrifying Makeup and Appearance of Pennywise
Alright, first things first: the look! Pennywise's appearance is absolutely crucial in setting the tone and creeping us out. In the 1990 miniseries, Tim Curry brought Pennywise to life with a makeup design that was a blend of unsettling and almost comical. The classic clown makeup, with its bright red hair, exaggerated grin, and oversized costume, was deeply ingrained in many people’s childhood fears of clowns. Tim Curry's performance leaned into the character's theatrical nature, employing exaggerated gestures and a high-pitched, mocking voice that made Pennywise seem more playful, yet still incredibly menacing. The 1990 Pennywise felt like a classic monster from a horror storybook, a creature that thrives on childish fears. It was a more grounded, less overtly monstrous design, which allowed the actor to focus on crafting a terrifying psychological presence. His costume was relatively simple, which heightened the focus on his face and the chilling intent behind his words and actions.
Moving on to the 2017 version, Bill Skarsgård’s Pennywise had a distinctly different aesthetic. The makeup design was more modern, with a starker, more detailed appearance. It featured a wider, more disturbing smile, sharper teeth, and a more elongated forehead. Skarsgård's Pennywise was designed to be terrifying in a more visceral way. The 2017 version embraced a more monstrous and grotesque appearance. The costume was also more detailed, incorporating elements that emphasized his inhuman nature, like the frilly collar and the use of bold, textured fabrics. Skarsgård's performance was significantly different; he brought a more animalistic and unpredictable quality to the character. His Pennywise was less about the humor and more about pure, unadulterated dread. He used a variety of physical tics and vocal inflections to create a sense of discomfort and unease, making him a terrifying embodiment of the unknown that lurks in the shadows. The 2017 version's appearance was more polished, designed to exploit modern cinematic techniques to amplify the horror and impact on the audience.
The difference in makeup design and performance shows how filmmakers adapted to changing cinematic techniques and horror sensibilities. Both actors delivered memorable performances, but their approaches reflect the times. The 1990 Pennywise focused on psychological horror and theatricality, while the 2017 version aimed for a more visceral and visually striking terror. The key element to remember is both versions successfully created a sense of fear, but through different methods. The 1990 version leaned into the nostalgia of the classic horror and the theatrical, while the 2017 version fully utilized the more modern and technical approach to amplify horror through the use of visual effects and jump scares.
Performance and Personality: Curry vs. Skarsgård
Okay, let's get into the personalities! This is where the actors really make the character their own. Tim Curry’s performance in 1990 was a masterclass in controlled chaos. He played Pennywise with a theatrical flair, a playful wickedness. His Pennywise was charismatic and unpredictable, capable of switching between charming and terrifying in the blink of an eye. Curry's portrayal was not just about scaring people; it was about toying with them, drawing them in with a deceptive sense of familiarity before revealing the true horror that lay beneath. His performance has a certain charm that made him memorable, embodying a clown that could be both friendly and incredibly disturbing. The portrayal focused on psychological horror and the manipulation of the fears of children. Curry's Pennywise felt like a classic movie villain. He felt so real, thanks to the actor's abilities, giving the audience a feeling that the clown was capable of doing terrible things, but he still had a degree of control in his actions.
On the flip side, Bill Skarsgård’s 2017 Pennywise offered a more sinister and unsettling take. His performance was more physically expressive. Skarsgård brought a raw, animalistic quality to the role. He delivered a Pennywise that was pure, unadulterated evil. His version was more unpredictable, less restrained, and more likely to lash out violently. The 2017 Pennywise felt less like a mischievous clown and more like a monstrous entity that feeds on fear. Skarsgård’s performance emphasized the horrifying aspects, making the character feel more menacing than the Curry version. His Pennywise was designed to be an ever-present threat. He used his physical and vocal range to create a sense of unease, making him seem both intimidating and terrifying. This version used physical tics, creating a sense of a being that was not fully in control, and it was the perfect character to instill fear in a modern audience.
Comparing the two, Curry's Pennywise offered a more refined, theatrical performance. Skarsgård delivered a more visceral and unpredictable embodiment of evil. Both actors were successful in their own ways, but they targeted different approaches to scare audiences. Curry used a mixture of theatrical skills and psychological techniques, while Skarsgård went for the more visceral and visual. The performances are very different, representing the evolution of horror over the years. This shows how actors adapt to the times, in order to make their version of the clown scary and memorable. The differences between the actors created their versions of Pennywise in different, but equally powerful ways.
The Story and Scares: Nostalgia vs. Modern Horror
Let’s discuss the story structure and the type of scares each movie delivered. The 1990 miniseries was a two-part adaptation, which had to cram the sprawling story into a limited runtime. This miniseries had a greater focus on the characters and their relationships, allowing for deeper emotional connections to be established. The scares in the 1990 version were more restrained, relying on suspense and the viewers' imaginations. The miniseries played on the fear of the unknown. The special effects were limited by the technology of the time, and the miniseries focused on creating atmosphere and suspense. The slow burn of the story allowed for a greater development of the characters, which added to the impact of the scary scenes. The first part of the miniseries had the child actors, and the second part had the adults, reflecting the classic story of the book. The miniseries kept the narrative of the novel, and added many of the elements from the book to build a unique story.
The 2017 movie, on the other hand, had the advantage of modern filmmaking. The film could capitalize on modern technology, and it had a larger budget. The movie went for jump scares, graphic violence, and intense visuals to shock the audience. The film gave the viewers a more immersive experience. The story of the film was broken up into two parts. The first part focused on the kids, and it was designed to appeal to the modern audience. The movie added a lot of elements that focused on a more visual experience. The use of more jump scares and graphic violence gave the film a more intense experience. The film also included some more adult elements than the miniseries, to keep the audience entertained. The remake's approach to horror was a reflection of the genre's evolution, with filmmakers focusing on creating immediate fear and a more visual experience.
In essence, the 1990 miniseries opted for a more psychological approach, focusing on building suspense and atmosphere, while the 2017 film relied on modern techniques to enhance the impact. Both versions delivered their own type of horror. One was built on the suspense of the story, and the other built on jump scares and gore. The movie and miniseries have very different characteristics, each adapting to the technological possibilities of their time. The miniseries focused on building the story, while the movie focused on the visual aspect of the experience. Both had their strengths and weaknesses. The key is that both of them were created to make the audience feel fear.
The Verdict: Which Pennywise Reigns Supreme?
So, which Pennywise is better? Well, that depends on what you're looking for, guys! The 1990 miniseries offers a nostalgic, character-driven experience with a more psychological approach. It's a classic for a reason, and Tim Curry’s performance remains iconic. It's a great example of the older style of horror, and it can be still enjoyed today.
The 2017 remake, with its modern effects and visceral scares, delivers a more intense and visually stunning experience. Bill Skarsgård’s Pennywise is a truly terrifying creation, perfectly tailored for today's horror audiences. It is made for today's audience, and it is a good example of the modern style of horror. The movie had the benefit of advanced technology. It offered a modern, polished performance, and it was a great success.
Ultimately, there's no clear winner. Both versions of IT and Pennywise offer a unique and terrifying experience. It boils down to a matter of personal preference. Do you prefer classic horror and character development, or are you after a more intense, visually driven scare? Maybe you love them both! Either way, both versions are essential viewing for any horror fan. They both have something to offer, and both have their strong points. Both Pennywises will be remembered for generations to come, as two of the most terrifying clowns in movie history.