The work of Stephen King has a long history of making its way to the big screen with wildly different results. Some land Academy Awards (“Misery”) or become classics (“The Shawshank Redemption”) while others disappear into the film ether (“The Mangler,” “Sleepwalkers,” “Thinner,” “Hearts in Atlantis,” “Graveyard Shift” … you get the idea.) But when great material merges with a wonderful adaptation, the result can be a $91 million dollar opening weekend, as was the case with “It: Chapter Two.”
Every adaptation comes with its challenges and even with two movies, you cant fit all of Kings 1,138 pages onto the big screen. Screenwriter Gary Dauberman, who co-wrote the first chapter and also penned all the of “Annabelle” films, was faced with a dream job that could have become a nightmare: how to update the characters of Kings lovable “Losers Club” for the big screen. We spoke to him about the differences between book and movie, and the things that got lost along the way.
Related
Stephen King novels have been adapted with varying degrees of success. Why do you think yours worked so well?
The ones that dont work are the ones that usually take a bigger departure from the source material. I try to keep the book as the North Star and write towards that. My approach was always: I love the books; lets go back to the basics. Which can be difficult when its a long book and you cant do everything. You try to do as much as you can.
The book hints at Richies sexuality, but the movie addresses it. Did you know when you were writing Part One this would play out in Part Two?
Theres no doubt about it, for sure. It was something (director) Andy Muschietti and (producer) Barbara Muschietti and I discussed and felt strongly about. Im not sure about the timeline, whether it was before the movie or in production on the first movie, but it wasnt a late inspiration. It was discussed early on; I just dont remember how early.
Another change to the story is the jobs the Losers have when they grow up. Sometimes its smaller things, like Richie becomes a radio DJ in the book; in the film hes a stand-up comedian. But Eddie went from owning a limousine company to a risk-management analyst.
That was an Andy thing, too and a stroke of genius. It felt like a natural progression of the character. Hes a hypochondriac and always questioning the risks in every situation, so it played out beautifully.
The book had major subplots involving Beverlys abusive husband Tom kidnapping Bills wife Audra. But in the film, we only glimpse the spouses at the start.
It was just one of those things where its so great in the novel, but you have some concern that you cant fit everything. While you go in with the best intentions of trying to include everything, its just not possible. There were drafts with Tom. But you just want to get back to the mission and the kids. Same thing with Audra, we wanted to keep the focus on our core group weve known from the first movie. It felt right. We also didnt want to take away from Henry – we wanted him to be as much of a threat as possible. You start spreading it around and it kind of dilutes the evil of Henry.
Speaking of Henry, theres a joke about his mullet that comes after a tense moment. The movie is full of those releases and really funny.
You need that laughter. I think the first one is really funny too. This cast is full of remarkably funny people, so it almost cant be funny when you have people like Bill Hader. I think those jokes are true to the spirit of the first one we wanted to capture and carry it over to this film.
Theres a moment where Richie mimics Pennywise dancing, a very meme-able moment from the first film. Did you write that?
Those are things I wish I could take credit for. That was totally Hader. What a gift. I was writing drafts where you know its going to be Hader and Original Article
