It (2017)

2 suggested corrections

(16 votes)

Factual error: Nivea Soft Cream is on the shelves at the chemist - this did not exist in 1989, when the film is set.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: I think the date is subject to debate. The only thing we really have to go on is it's 2019 in chapter 2, and It comes back every 27 years which would be 1992.

The date is not subject to debate. The marquee on the movie theater is advertising both "Batman" and "Lethal Weapon 2," placing the movie in the summer of 1989.

Phaneron Premium member

There is no debate about the date. After the title card it says "June 1989." The opening scene took place "October 1988."


Continuity mistake: When Bev is hanging in the air, she is wearing a dress, with no leggings. As she gets pulled down with the help of the boys, she is wearing dark coloured leggings.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: She doesn't have leggings on when being pulled down either.

Quantom X Premium member

Suggested correction: Bev wears that dress in several scenes and the only time she isn't wearing leggings is at the quarry.

It mistake picture

Factual error: During the opening scene in 1988, a silver TV from the late 90's/early 00's is in the living room/dining room area. (00:02:10)

More mistakes in It

Pennywise: This isn't real enough for you, Billy? I'm not real enough for you?
Richie Tozier: Holy shit!
Pennywise: It was real enough for Georgie!

More quotes from It

Trivia: Bill SkarsgÄrd was purposely kept separated from the child-actors during filming, and outside of some early publicity photos, the kids never saw him until the first scene they filmed together in order to get their genuine reactions. The kids were both genuinely scared of him, but also incredibly excited after filming their first scene.

More trivia for It

Question: Why does this version of Pennywise look so scary as opposed to Tim Curry's version? Tim's version looks harmless enough that children would definitely go up to him but Bill's version would certainly have scared a child even today.

Answer: It's a matter of artistic choice to create a different look and mood from its predecessor. The filmmakers of the new movie made Pennywise more overtly malevolent, whereas the Tim Curry version portrayed the character as benevolent looking to hide an evil interior, and be able to more easily gain children's trust..

raywest Premium member

Answer: Artistic choice, and (directly or indirectly) being more faithful to the original novel. Pennywise's appearance in this film is almost an exact replica of the book's descriptions, with a 19th century style added to it, and some minor changes.

More questions & answers from It

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.