"It" is due to return in 2013

[DaveBond21]

In the novel, the cycle of "IT" is about every 28 years. This means that It is due to revisit Derry in 2013.

Does anyone think Stephen would be tempted to write a sequel to mark the date?

[themadone06]

It would be cool, but I believe It is completely dead and was killed in the first novel.

[Raistlin]

A sequel would be a great idea. It may be dead, but clowns are a funny bunch :eek2:

[Patricia A]

In the novel, the cycle of "IT" is about every 28 years. This means that It is due to revisit Derry in 2013.

Does anyone think Stephen would be tempted to write a sequel to mark the date?
That is a brilliant idea!
But if it's done it'll probably be something like Carrie 2 and that would suck.
I just went from elated to sad it 3.2 seconds.

[Nutty Bavarian]

I don't know if I'd want a sequel, but definately a remake with modern CG. Some of the stuff from the book just wasn't translated to the movie. I've always hated clowns. I mean come on if you have to paint on a smile that just seems creepy.

[Cowboy]

I understand that there will be no Mayans attending the premier.

[the_last_gunslinger]

I don't think a sequel would be a very wise idea. IT was such an epic masterpiece that any follow up novel would pale in comparison.

Plus, what made the book so great was the Loser's club, learning of their childhoods in the fifties, and watching them reunite in the eighties. The nostalgia factor would simply not exist. Plus, the main characters are just too old now to be as interesting. Unless King brought in a whole new cast, or have something hokey like having their children fight It.

However, I would think it to be very interesting if the date were to be commemorated, but not as a novel. As a short story, maybe. I could swallow a sequel if it was in a shorter form.

[thepunisher82]

If the sequel were to have one of Pennywise's spawn as the villain, I would love for King to do it. As much as I love "IT," the book made it very clear that Pennywise won't be coming back to Derry. The book did raise the possibility that Ben may have missed some of the babies, so I see it as the only sensible way to go about a sequel without spoiling the legacy of the first book.

[michal]

Maybe reading this he will now...

[Robert Gray]

I certainly hope not. There is no bigger fan of "It" than I, but some stories have reached a satisfying conclusion. If something was done right the first time, there is no reason to revisit it.

[thymeoperator]

I understand that there will be no Mayans attending the premier.

that is hilarious!

[eaglpaul]

There is already a film remake being made. It is due out in 2011, and unlike the original, will be released in the theaters. I hope this means that there will be more blood and gore, in other words, that it will be truer to the book, while at the same time keeping to the time schedule of a theatrically released movie.

If they're smart they'll do what Peter Jackson did with the LOTR series and split the book up into parts and make those into movies. I know that LOTR was three books, but if you think about it IT as a stand alone novel was longer than all three books combined. I believe that it would be more than possible to split the book up into sections and make 2 movies from it. And release them six months apart, that way you don't overload the viewer, but at the same time you increase the anticipation of the climactic ending of the film.

I don't believe that that will really happen, but it's a good idea. Another good idea is to bring Tim Curry back as Pennywise. He's the voice I hear in my head when I read the book, I just hear him saying "They all float down here." That is so creepy, I love it.

But no matter what happens, I think a modern remake of IT will be awesome, and that I will thouroughly enjoy it.

[Robert Gray]

I disagree. There is nothing good about a movie and plenty of bad about resetting the time. The best thing that could happen to this film is it dies in pre-production.

[tillyn]

I would like to read some more with those characters just to see if anything happens, one of my fav. stories.

[Jake Featherston]

I certainly hope not. There is no bigger fan of "It" than I, but some stories have reached a satisfying conclusion. If something was done right the first time, there is no reason to revisit it.

I'm inclined to agree. "It 2: In Soviet Derry, Clown Kills You!," or whatever it would be called, would be a bad idea. But a short story might be very cool.

[jaxter]

ugh I don't know.. i heard IT remake was being made into ONE movie, if thats so I think that is a poor poor decision. After reading the book I can't go back to watching the movie It. It really just wasn't the same. If theres a movie being made about IT than i think it would only do it justice to make into a few movies or a series sort of just so the show could really plunge into the depth and meaning of the book. and also only if in production they put ALOT of emphasis on really putting effort into finding good actors that can play the part AND look it, and the story itself. to me that just seems like alot of odds that can't be beat. With Hollywoods record of mashing movies together just to make a fast buck I don't think I'd like to see this book ruined. I loved it too much.

[Mephisto]

:laugh:
I understand that there will be no Mayans attending the premier.

[foyst]

It would be cool, but I believe It is completely dead and was killed in the first novel.

Hi all, not sure if i think an It 2 would be a good idea but regarding It's fate, in Dreamcatcher...

from wiki

A brief mention is made to It when Jonesy and Mr. Gray reach the place in Derry that used to be called Standpipe Hill. Instead of the Derry reservoir (known as the Standpipe), there is only a memorial to those who died in the storm of 1985 and "to the children--ALL the children" from the primary member of the Losers Club, the heroes of the novel It. At the bottom of this memorial is a graffito that would unsettle any of the surviving members of the Losers Club--"Pennywise Lives."

[Bob Ross]

I disagree. There is nothing good about a movie and plenty of bad about resetting the time. The best thing that could happen to this film is it dies in pre-production.
On one hand I agree with this. On the other hand, I think there were so many things that just weren't included (or completely screwed up) in the original miniseries that I would love to see some kind of remake. I would not want the setting changed in any way though. To me, IT takes place in 1958 and 1985 and that's where it needs to stay (a mistake made by the original miniseries as well). There's really no other way I would want to see it. Also, I cannot see this as a simple two-hour movie, and if that it the route they want to take I agree completely with you that it needs to die in pre-production. But if they were make it a multi-part miniseries (preferably on HBO, which would make sense when you consider A: doing so would allow the gorier parts of the book to come to glorious life and B: Warner Bros. - who are making the remake, own HBO so I don't see why this couldn't be an option) I could really get excited.

As far as King himself writing a direct sequel to the book? No way it's going to happen. And there's no way I want it to happen. I've seen too many writers cheapen former masterpieces with needless followups (Ira Levin's SON OF ROSEMARY comes to mind).

[LauraJo]

I did wonder about that bit in Dreamcatcher...

They could never make a film as good as the book, and I think it would be impossible to make the film true to the book, particularly Beverley's method of 're-bonding' the group...there would be uproar about that, certainly!

As for a sequel...prehaps not. A short story might work...or prehaps a story featuring some of the charactars, such as Bev and Ben who went off together?? Not a whole story about them specifically, but maybe a cameo so we can 'check in' on them?
You probably couldnt bring back the losers club, as at the end of the book they are all starting to forget everything again.

[Jake Featherston]

I've seen too many writers cheapen former masterpieces with needless followups (Ira Levin's SON OF ROSEMARY comes to mind).

Yeah, what a piece of crap that was!

[faithraine96]

I don't think there SHOULD be one. I agree with an earlier post, IT is such a masterpiece, and almost everyone remembers "that clown movie", even if they aren't a die-hard fan of King. Messing with it (no pun intended) would not be a very wise choice. I do hear they are remaking the movie (something I think is going to ruin it all, but we may be pleasantly surprised; most remakes or sequels suck), which may bring It to a new generation, but...

Another thing I have heard suggested (but not verified at ALL), is the possibility of an uncut IT (like the uncut Stand), which I think would be great to release at the time when Pennywise would make an appearance in Derry, but there is nothing to say that there IS an uncut. I don't see any reason why there SHOULD be an uncut. The book is already over 1000 pages long. It's already a very interwoven and complex novel to begin with...

[pseudosomething]

I wondered about a sequel as well. A novella or short taking place in Derry that coincides with the Pennywise return date would absolutely be readable, and might be great. I couldn't see it involving the original characters, though. At least not all of them. Their story was told. An incidental connection makes more sense.

[Sony02]

I love it, but it would not be a good continuation. We only have five left.

[Robert Gray]

It isn't due back because that story ended. Retelling the same story over and over again would not be satisfying and can only diminish the original by tainting it.

[Jake Featherston]

I do hear they are remaking the movie (something I think is going to ruin it all, but we may be pleasantly surprised; most remakes or sequels suck), which may bring It to a new generation, but...

I don't think the original movie was very good, so I look forward to the remake.

[nicklove09]

If "IT" is remade, I think it should be made into a 1 season series, like how LOST is, with the flashbacks and stuff. GOSH that would be my favorite SHOW ever "IT" haha.

[Balltastics2000]

It is by far my favourite novel and the only story that has genuinely scared me. I've read it 3 or 4 times in my life, the first time when I was 12, the most recent a couple of years ago when I was 27 and I would gladly welcome any further tales of Derry and the creature that dwells beneath it.
With regards to the new film, I am quite annoyed that it is to be a modernised version. In my dream world I would direct the story as two feature length films back to back, Kill Bill style, the first chapter of course being the 50's and then following it up with the 80's component of the tale. Jumping back and forth between childhood and adulthood works great in the novel but not so much on film.

[JackTheRipper]

In the novel, the cycle of "IT" is about every 28 years. This means that It is due to revisit Derry in 2013.


This has occurred to me as well, but I believe you added wrong. 1985 + 27 = 2012

[DancingCorpse]

I don't think i would like a sequel to IT. In my opinion, i just think that that particular story is done and dusted - and beautifully at that :)

[sissy]

"IT" was the first S.K. book I ever read, I was 13 years old and could not leave my bed at night to use the bathroom at night for 6 months without a light on. It was the scarriest thing ever to me. Needles to say I was hooked from that first sleepless night.:love: however the movie only made me laugh. I am completly for the idea of a short that features the spawn of It "calling" offspring of the losers club for revenge of the murder of its mother.

[KingIsKing]

No, I watched his book-signing tour and he was asked this question and he said that there would be nore of it. (pun intended)

[thymeoperator]

This has occurred to me as well, but I believe you added wrong. 1985 + 27 = 2012

... which means at the end of the new film the whole planet will blow up, the end ?? :)

[wally wonder]

This has occurred to me as well, but I believe you added wrong. 1985 + 27 = 2012


makes sense. isn't utd 2012? p989 It=p734 UtD

[Flipsk8emerica]

In the novel, the cycle of "IT" is about every 28 years. This means that It is due to revisit Derry in 2013.

Does anyone think Stephen would be tempted to write a sequel to mark the date?

No, I saw a recent video of SK at a book signing promoting his new book Under the Dome and someone brought up the same question. SK stated "I'm done with clowns"

As far as movies go that's a different story.
On 12 March 2009, Warner Bros. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros.) announced that the production of a new adaptation of Stephen King's novel had started, and will be releasing a theatrical remake in 2011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_in_film). Dan Lin, Roy Lee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lee) and Doug Davison are set to produce. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_kings_it#cite_note-0)Not much is known about the remake except it will be R-rated and it will take place in the mid 1980s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s) and the present equally

[DaveBond21]

Thanks for all the replies - it's an interesting discussion.

I was really talking only about the novel, not the movie.

The main reason I asked in the first place is that.....BEWARE DREAMCATCHER SPOILERS....

....we know that Pennywise is still alive because he scrawled "Pennywise Lives!" over the Derry memorial dedicated to the town by the Losers Club. I guess Dreamcatcher itself is a sequel to IT.

Additionally someone sees a clown in the Derry sewers in The Tommyknockers.

All this prompts me to believe that something will happen in Derry in 2012/13 whether Stephen writes about it or not...;)

-

[AndyGrieser]

Well, that's the general timeframe for Under the Dome, and without spoiling too much, the ending involves a sort of return of IT...

[toothextractor]

Thanks for all the replies - it's an interesting discussion.

I was really talking only about the novel, not the movie.

The main reason I asked in the first place is that.....BEWARE DREAMCATCHER SPOILERS....

....we know that Pennywise is still alive because he scrawled "Pennywise Lives!" over the Derry memorial dedicated to the town by the Losers Club. I guess Dreamcatcher itself is a sequel to IT.

Additionally someone sees a clown in the Derry sewers in The Tommyknockers.

All this prompts me to believe that something will happen in Derry in 2012/13 whether Stephen writes about it or not...;)

-

I've always thought that the version of It that the Losers finally killed in 1985 was indeed dead and gone forever. But the "real" it--the one that existed as the deadlights, outside of the macroverse--"outside of everything," as Richie once said, is probably still around. Which means that It might've slipped through the cracks of more than one universe; we may have been seeing another version of Derry (and Haven, etc.) in The Tommyknockers and Dreamcatchers. (Not unlike the way Its kissing cousin, Tak, appeared in more than one universe as well.) Just a theory...

[Const. Reader]

I don't know whats going to happen, but what would be cool is...

A huge book, the entire thing being all the weird stuff that It dreams of while sleeping those 28 or so years. 1000 pages of bizarre. Yup, I'd read That.

[Jareth Goderis]

Thanks for all the replies - it's an interesting discussion.

I was really talking only about the novel, not the movie.

The main reason I asked in the first place is that.....BEWARE DREAMCATCHER SPOILERS....

....we know that Pennywise is still alive because he scrawled "Pennywise Lives!" over the Derry memorial dedicated to the town by the Losers Club. I guess Dreamcatcher itself is a sequel to IT.

Additionally someone sees a clown in the Derry sewers in The Tommyknockers.

All this prompts me to believe that something will happen in Derry in 2012/13 whether Stephen writes about it or not...;)

-



Okay one problem Dreamcatcher was wrote in 2001, quite a few years difference between that and 2012, when It would have still been sleeping. Also The Tommyknockers was wrote in 1987 a year after It, so how could It possibly be the one who wrote Pennywise lives! and be the clown seen in the Tommyknockers. More than likely one of It's children will come back.

[JohnDalglish]

All this prompts me to believe that something will happen in Derry in 2012/13 whether Stephen writes about it or not...;)


Hi,

Can something happen IF Stephen doesn't write about it?

'If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?
If there's no-one there to hear it when it hits the ground'

Long days and pleasant nights

[Walter o'Dim]

I certainly hope not. There is no bigger fan of "It" than I, but some stories have reached a satisfying conclusion. If something was done right the first time, there is no reason to revisit it.


im with you on that one why mess with the classics eh? IT does not need a sequel

[Daniel Lee Severn]

If the sequel were to have one of Pennywise's spawn as the villain, I would love for King to do it. As much as I love "IT," the book made it very clear that Pennywise won't be coming back to Derry. The book did raise the possibility that Ben may have missed some of the babies, so I see it as the only sensible way to go about a sequel without spoiling the legacy of the first book.

In Dreamcatcher, one of the characters sees some graffitti that reads "PENNYWISE STILL LIVES!" Also, in Insomnia, Ralph Roberts sees the "deadlights". Just some food for thought. I believe that some form of Pennywise was still alive after the Losers destroyed it's physical form.

[Robert Gray]

Ralph sees lights coming from the sewers. That alone doesn't mean he saw the Deadlights. In fact, he can't have seen them. Even when It was alive, it had to toss Bill out beyond everything to show him the Deadlights. There is no doubt that Ralph saw something. There is no doubt that it is probably residual or linked indirectly to the entity that sometimes made a nest under Derry, but It is dead.

[Daniel Lee Severn]

In Insomnia it says that the Crimson King flees into the deadlights after being defeated by Ralph Roberts, seriously. Ralph saw an aura coming from the sewers, the book only mentions the "deadlights" in that one part. IT IS NOT DEAD! LOL

[Robert Gray]

In Insomnia it says that the Crimson King flees into the deadlights after being defeated by Ralph Roberts, seriously. Ralph saw an aura coming from the sewers, the book only mentions the "deadlights" in that one part. IT IS NOT DEAD! LOL

I've read Insomnia. I've read the Tommyknockers too. I think you may be overlooking a few things. 1. The Crimson King is NOT It, nor does the Crimson King serve It. 2. Lots of spiritual entities utilize glamor. Lots of things glow with light without being the Deadlights. 3. The Deadlights exist outside of everything and can only truly be seen by going "out there." I'm sorry to say that four decades now of idiotic endings to bad horror films has biased a whole generation (perhaps two) into the automatic assumption that the bad guys cannot die. They can. With good writers, an EARNED victory of the forces of evil remains a victory. I want to draw your attention to a brief moment at the end of It when we hear what is clearly the voice of the "Other," or God. It tells Bill them they did a good job. The return of It would make a liar out of God.

[king family fan]

only king really knows!

[jcadams]

SK may be done with clowns, but are they done with him? And who says IT has to come back as a clown?

[Daniel Lee Severn]

The book actually says that The Crimson King flees into the "deadlights", I'm not making it up. And I agree with you on the fact that Pennywise holds no sway over The Crimson King. I believe that the "deadlights" could be the thinny that Roland sees in The Dark Tower, or something else that comes out of "todash". Just a thought, I don't have any real proof on that part. I also agree with you that bad guys can die, and perhaps that is what happened to Pennywise. All I'm saying is that, by some of the tidbits that he adds into other novels like: Insomnia, Tommyknockers, Dreamcatcher, The Dark Tower, so on and so forth, that it is possible that he is trying to allude to the fact that IT did not die completely. Maybe, a big maybe, he is trying to tell us that some form of IT did not die and is hibernating, building strength, getting ready for IT's next banquet, maybe not, I don't know for sure. Perhaps it's just a character that I don't want to see die and I'm hoping that it did not. I like to keep that hope alive. He is going back to The Dark Tower and possibly The Shining, why not IT, IMHO, his best work.

[Daniel Lee Severn]

In my mass-market paperback, on page 606, in the middle of the paragraph, it reads as follows: "Then something above them opened, revealing darkness shot through with conflicting swirls and rays of color. The wind seemed to blow the Crimson King up toward it, like a leaf in a chimney-flue. The colors began to brighten, and Ralph turned his face away, raising one hand to shield his eyes. He understood that a conduit had opened between the level where he was and the unimaginable levels stacked above it; he also understood that if he looked for long into that brightening glow, those
(deadlights)
swirling colors, then death would not be the worst thing that could happen to him but the best." Just wanted to show you that I'm not making this up.

[Robert Gray]

Perhaps it's just a character that I don't want to see die and I'm hoping that it did not. I like to keep that hope alive. He is going back to The Dark Tower and possibly The Shining, why not IT, IMHO, his best work.

I think this is the case. You want it and thus you are seeing what you want to see. Let me ask you a simple, honest question. Why? Why would you want to cheapen the first novel, undo all that the Losers accomplished at great cost, and just replay the same old tricks? It is a creature of habit. If it did, as you wish, survive somehow, it would return to doing exactly the same things it did before. It would be like watching Freddy kill kids in their dreams over and over again into eternity. That isn't a story. It is a snuff film. It isn't scary anymore. It is camp. It was the greatest monster of all time. Let it die with dignity. We remember Grendel and his mother century upon century later without the benefit of a sequel.

I'm going to answer your other post (about Insomnia) here rather than double post. Ralph was seeing other spiritual levels, i.e. not this world when he glimpsed those lights. He also was miles above the ground in a plane headed toward Derry and not in Derry. Do you see my point? What Ralph (with his divine sight) can see has nothing to do with the material world or even Derry. The Crimson King's method of travel might call upon Todash or any number of other methods which tap dark powers but the true Deadlights are outside of everything and wanting in. The Deadlights are a living entity blocked out of reality by a great wall.

[Daniel Lee Severn]

You are going on the assumption that I want a repeat of what IT was, that's not the case. I just said that I want to believe that It still lives somewhere in the SK universe. I'm not asking for a new IT novel, just the knowledge that IT is still alive in some form. Maybe to make a cameo in another novel would be cool, but not an entire novel dedicated to IT.

You are also assuming that I don't realize what the "deadlights" are, that they are just something that belongs only to Derry. This was not my point, I just said that Ralph sees the "deadlights", which he does, it actually says "deadlights" in Insomnia. Maybe IT is truly dead, but nothing that King has said or wrote contributes to that fact.

[Daniel Lee Severn]

You are right about there being a true sequal to IT, it would cheapen it, unless it is a story not about Pennywise but focuses on the remaining "Losers" or just one of them. I could see SK bringing them back. I still believe that IT lives though. ;-)

[Robert Gray]

You are going on the assumption that I want a repeat of what IT was, that's not the case. I just said that I want to believe that It still lives somewhere in the SK universe. I'm not asking for a new IT novel, just the knowledge that IT is still alive in some form. Maybe to make a cameo in another novel would be cool, but not an entire novel dedicated to IT.

There will always be a new monster. At issue is what you want, because if you change the form and function, it is a new monster and NOT It. Everything It was (and why it appeals) was tied in a specific time and place. You an always go back to the book and read it again. I find something new every time I do so. For myself, I'd rather not see It making guest start appearances in other works. I don't want to see It put out to pasture like a has-been actor making cameos on the Love Boat.


You are also assuming that I don't realize what the "deadlights" are, that they are just something that belongs only to Derry. This was not my point, I just said that Ralph sees the "deadlights", which he does, it actually says "deadlights" in Insomnia. Maybe IT is truly dead, but nothing that King has said or wrote contributes to that fact.

I disagree. The voice of the Other speaks directly to them (and indirectly us) at the end of the book. It congratulates them on a job well done. This time they all start to lose their memories (even Mike). All evidence of the events start to fade, even written words on the page. The Other is Sai King's cameo for God and thus it would be kind of pointless for this entity to lie to people. One does not make a liar out of God. Everything at the end of the novel indicates that It is dead, period. The book leaves open that some infernal offspring may have slipped off into the darkness, but they would not be It.

[Alexandra19]

Hi,

Robert Gray, you have already well said everything I think about a sequel, I completely agree with each and every word you wrote.

I also think It is dead, even though It's mentioned in The Tommyknockers and Dreamcatcher ; Saï King loves to mention his other books when writing a new one, that doesn't necesseraly mean something about what the mentioned characters are doing or will become - I personnaly like to pick up the references when I catch them because they make me smile but I wouldn't conclude anything from them.

In Insomnia, Clotho and Lachesis explain that there are superior creatures called the Pentachrones (I hope it's the same word in english) : I guess It was one of them, and so are the Crimson King, Perse (Duma Key) and the creature in Rose Madder. To my mind they're like cousins, belonging to the same family, all of them being linked with spiders, red color or both. There are certainly a lot more wandering around and destroying things, but I don't think they are some kind of It's reincarnation.

About the possible new movie, I didn't find the 1st one that good. It kind of makes me laugh, and Tim Curry does a good job but it's really far from all the social aspects of the book about childhood and beliefs.
I don't think any movie could reflect that anyway, so it could just be another not-so-bad horror film and I wouldn't mind because I would consider it has nothing to do with the book.

[Daniel Lee Severn]

There will always be a new monster. At issue is what you want, because if you change the form and function, it is a new monster and NOT It. Everything It was (and why it appeals) was tied in a specific time and place. You an always go back to the book and read it again. I find something new every time I do so. For myself, I'd rather not see It making guest start appearances in other works. I don't want to see It put out to pasture like a has-been actor making cameos on the Love Boat.

These cameos are a time honored tradition of SK as we both know, it doesn't cheapen anything to catch these glimpses of favorite characters, especially like Pennywise, it makes the whole thing creepier to me.



I disagree. The voice of the Other speaks directly to them (and indirectly us) at the end of the book. It congratulates them on a job well done. This time they all start to lose their memories (even Mike). All evidence of the events start to fade, even written words on the page. The Other is Sai King's cameo for God and thus it would be kind of pointless for this entity to lie to people. One does not make a liar out of God. Everything at the end of the novel indicates that It is dead, period. The book leaves open that some infernal offspring may have slipped off into the darkness, but they would not be It.

This still doesn't prove your point, why would SK add those tidbits into his other stories if IT was dead, how would anyone know anything about Pennywise to spraypaint "Pennywise Lives", if IT was dead, there would be no memory of IT for someone to spraypaint those words. Just because the Other tells them they did a good job? Sorry, that doesn't cut it for me, I need more proof than that.

I'm willing to agree to disagree, you won't change my mind and I don't believe I'll change yours. I believe we are just wasting time trying. I respect your opinions but have my own.

[Daniel Lee Severn]

Hi,

Robert Gray, you have already well said everything I think about a sequel, I completely agree with each and every word you wrote.

I also think It is dead, even though It's mentioned in The Tommyknockers and Dreamcatcher ; Saï King loves to mention his other books when writing a new one, that doesn't necesseraly mean something about what the mentioned characters are doing or will become - I personnaly like to pick up the references when I catch them because they make me smile but I wouldn't conclude anything from them.

In Insomnia, Clotho and Lachesis explain that there are superior creatures called the Pentachrones (I hope it's the same word in english) : I guess It was one of them, and so are the Crimson King, Perse (Duma Key) and the creature in Rose Madder. To my mind they're like cousins, belonging to the same family, all of them being linked with spiders, red color or both. There are certainly a lot more wandering around and destroying things, but I don't think they are some kind of It's reincarnation.

About the possible new movie, I didn't find the 1st one that good. It kind of makes me laugh, and Tim Curry does a good job but it's really far from all the social aspects of the book about childhood and beliefs.
I don't think any movie could reflect that anyway, so it could just be another not-so-bad horror film and I wouldn't mind because I would consider it has nothing to do with the book.

I can respect your feelings on this matter, I'm not attempting to start an argument from this, it's just my opinion from all that I've read is that there is no actual proof of IT being dead. Like I've posted before, maybe IT is dead, but until SK says definitely that that is the case, not just that he is done with killer clowns, I'll continue to believe that IT still lives. We both have the right to our opinions and I respect that yours is different than mine.

[GeorgiesArm]

I don't think you need to wait until 2013. It took It 26 years to wake up after 1958, he returned in 1984. 1985 + 26 = 2011. So you might already bump into Pennywise this coming fall and ask him to autograph your brand new 25th anniversary Special Edition.

[NPhorrorfan]

I honestly think that "It" should not have a sequel. I think the ending of the book was satisfying enough, and concluding enough. The simple hints throughout books like "The Tommyknockers" "Dreamcatcher" and "Insomnia" are all that is needed. It keeps you guessing and making your own mind up without cheapifying it (The Freddy Kruger allusion was perfect). Keep making references, is what I say. Writing another book set in Derry in modern times is what I want, with subtle hints.
"He heard the sound of chuckling from his drain. He was drunk, and in need of cigarette." Thats all it takes!!!

[Daniel Lee Severn]

I honestly think that "It" should not have a sequel. I think the ending of the book was satisfying enough, and concluding enough. The simple hints throughout books like "The Tommyknockers" "Dreamcatcher" and "Insomnia" are all that is needed. It keeps you guessing and making your own mind up without cheapifying it (The Freddy Kruger allusion was perfect). Keep making references, is what I say. Writing another book set in Derry in modern times is what I want, with subtle hints.
"He heard the sound of chuckling from his drain. He was drunk, and in need of cigarette." Thats all it takes!!!


I can live with that! Derry is my favorite setting of his, he has went back a few times and I loved it each time.

[MadamMack]

It's just my opinion from all that I've read is that there is no actual proof of IT being dead. Like I've posted before, maybe IT is dead, but until SK says definitely that that is the case, not just that he is done with killer clowns, I'll continue to believe that IT still lives.

Ditto.

[boromadnut]

I've wondered about It ever since I read it, feeling I was safe living in England and even if it did come back, its only a story...but try convincing me that when I've just read it! There are little hints in Tommyknockers and Dreamcatcher that maybe it's not entirely dead, but I dont think a sequel would be very good. The way Derry collapses at the end suggests that even if it were to come back (one of the eggs, maybe), it would take a lot longer than 27 years this time.