Why? Why? Why?

Not exactly a remake, just a re-imagining.

DON'T YOU WANT IT?

Don't put the devil in the picture, cause' the religious groups won't wanna see it.

They're remaking it because the original was a piece of crap full of horrid acting and TV induced limitations. It FELT like a stupid TV mini series. Just like The Stand did. It didn't feel like the story I grew to love. And again...the casting...terrible. Tim Reid was good, Harry Anderson/Seth Green were good. And of course, Tim Curry was tremendous. But the rest - blah...80's B list stars (yes, that is correct - which of them with MAYBE the exception of John Ritter, could realistically be called an A lister? And his claim to fame was Three's Company from the late 70's to mid 80's.)
I love this book almost equally as much as The Stand, Salem's Lot and 11-22-63. Seeing it on film the way it was presented was really disappointing. TV limits so much of what can be done. It needs a big Hollywood studio backing with big bucks and less strenuous censoring to truly match King's vision.

How does a remake go about "ruining a classic"?

This a classic?

How?

As others above have already explained in depth, it was an absolute POS. I remember watching it when it first aired (having read the book a number of years before then) and being dumbfounded by yet another amazing SK novel turned into a stinking turd by the networks.

There was nothing good about it at all, and those who rave about Curry as Pennywise clearly must not remember the book very well - he overacted and played the role about as far from what it should have been as possible. Pennywise isn't raving lunatic - he's HUNGRY. Although he at least brought his usual skill to the role, he just wasn't Pennywise the Dancing Clown... not even a bit.

It will be nice when a proper adaptation is done. If so, that wouldn't even be considered a remake, since this couldn't really be called a proper adaptation in the first place - at best it was a Reader's Digest Condensed Book version of It. And it sucked because of it. :D

Maybe because the miniseries is a godawful, biring as hell adaptation that doesn't make the book justice, and they want to make a decent and trully good adaptation that stays closer to the source material. The miniseires is highly overrated.

In any case, it's the miniseires the one that "ruined" the book.

I read the book when it was pretty new and loved it. When the miniseries initially aired I was pretty frustrated with some of the choices and omissions, but loved Tim Curry. I recently revisited the miniseries and was surprised by how well I thought "It" had aged.

Not that anyone cares, but for the time "It" was made, "It" was remarkably cinematic, if only by virtue of having occasional moments that actually feel like a movie. The Vancouver locations are surprisingly effective, especially in the flashbacks. And the cast don't all suck either, which is amazing for any product of an age when TV executives said "Spine-tingling horror?! Get me Ritter, John Boy Walton, and that guy from WKRP!"

But the b-movie tone? Maybe a little truer to the book than most fans are comfortable admitting. I wish it was longer and R-rated, but it's the "It" we got. In the canon of Stephen King adaptations, most of which are flat-out awful to the point of embarrassing (I'm looking at you, "Tommyknockers") "It" is easily one of the better ones.

The new movie(s) will probably suck, sure, but at least we have "Stranger Things".