21

Earlier today, I realized something startling. In the original "It" novel, It awakens roughly every 27 years to feast upon a new generation of children. The gap between the release of the It miniseries in 1990, and the film earlier this year, is exactly 27 years.

At first, I thought there was no way this was a coincidence, but apparently the movie was in development hell for several years, so it may not have been originally planned for a 2017 release date. The movie's Wikipedia article doesn't say either way, or even acknowledge the coincidence at all.

Is there any indication that the release date was planned, to resemble the 27-year cycle in the novel, or was it just fortuitous?

  • 1
    I don't think so, since the children are the same in both versions. If it was "Next Generation", that would have been cool. I think Hollywood just ran out of ideas as it does so often, and someone finally said, "We could make 'It' so much better with the technology we have today". It just happened to be 27 years later that someone felt it was long enough time for a remake. Halloween and its remake were roughly the same length of time apart; 29 years. – Johnny Bones Sep 21 '17 at 19:45
  • 2
    I think if it were intentional, we'd have seen it at least mentioned in the ads. "Every 27 years, It comes back..." Could have been a neat way to help bring folks to the theater. Then again, I thought that pointing out that Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith (almost stereotypical MiB names) were starring in Men in Black would have made great advertising, and it was almost ignored, so what do I know? – Ghotir Sep 21 '17 at 19:51
  • Apologes about the edit, I misread the title, so to make up for it, I upvoted it and favourited it as well as rollbacked on what the original title was. – natural Sep 21 '17 at 23:16
  • @Ghotir Since the movie was a remake (not a type of sequel), and "It" was killed in the 2nd part of the first movie, using the tagline, "It returns every 27 years" would not work. I'm going to guess it was both fortuitous and intentional meaning because of delays (for whatever reason), they were able to release it 27 years later. I'm going to chalk it up as an Easter egg. – DustinDavis Sep 22 '17 at 0:01
  • I guess we'll have to wait 2044 to see if there is a pattern. Maybe the creature really exists and feeds on the spectator's fears. – kikirex Sep 22 '17 at 12:25
2

It was deliberate

The website birthmoviesdeath.com published a Stephen King Commemorative Issue which contains an interview with Andy Muschietti in which he says the following about setting the movie in 1989:

Another thing too, lest I forget: our movie takes place in the '80s. Obviously, we had to change the time periods for a bunch of different reasons. Mostly now because the '80s are to today what the '50s were to the '80s, so it just makes sense to keep the time scales to 27 years. Just move them up from 2016 back to 1989.

So I think the answer to your question is: kind of. I wouldn't say the release date was planned to match the 27 year cycle, rather the movie was set in 1989 to match the 27 year cycle with the release date.

But coincidence it was not. It was deliberately set in the 80's because of the 27 year cycle.

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .