I’m wondering if that’s something that you can represent in a book but you just can’t represent in a TV show, the passing of time and what a pain in the ass that is. That he is basically reliving these whole years.
It’s interesting because what that part does in my mind, is it sort of accomplishes what an arduous chore this is for him. But I thought that no, the kind of movement and the minutes ticking by in television would not serve the It story well. You’re reading it at your own pace of reading, whether you’re a fast reader or a slow reader, and you can put it down or you can stay up for five hours and read and muscularly it can take all that. The book, you can read that at your own pace, he takes some gently meandering turns in kind of immersing you in the world of the 1960s and it’s fine because it’s a book. It was only a bit of a nostalgia trip and atmosphere and I just thought, “No this story is about one singular thing when it’s being put on screen.
It only added atmosphere and this story doesn’t need atmosphere. It did nothing to push the story dramatically forward. The reason that I didn’t try to fulfill any of the It elements, which were so fantastic in the book is, it had no dramatic impact. I did take it out of Derry, Maine, I put it in Kentucky. The It part, as you know I kept the Harry Dunning part. I’m just curious if there was any consideration on your part of keeping that in or whether that was just untenable, that you just couldn’t do that here?
That segment has been moved to a different state and the It stuff is all gone. Much of the early part of the book is a time-traveling jaunt that serves as an It sequel or companion. This may be the only conversation about 11.22.63 to delve into the departed ties to It or why nobody in the miniseries refers to the past as “obdurate,” or why the miniseries had to lose the Jodie High production of Of Mice and Men despite a star who did a recent Broadway production of the Steinbeck classic.
0 kommentar(er)
