Coulrophobia is the fear of clowns. And for those of you who suffer from that condition, I’m about to deliver some terrible news: the feature adaptation of Stephen King’s It is back on track. That means that the murderous Pennywise the Clown will be unleashed all over cinemas, creating a spike in coulrophobia cases.

Warner Bros. recently announced that Stephen King’s It will arrive on September 8, 2017 and be split into two parts. Director Andy Muscetti, who directed Mama, is attached to helm the feature, which has been in development hell for some time. Like King’s other classic books, The Stand and The Dark Tower series, the much-anticipated feature of It has gone through various incarnations, with different pieces of talent attached. But finally, the project looks to be headed into production.

The 1986 best-selling novel was already adapted once as a ABC television miniseries in 1990 that went on to become a cult favorite. Tim Curry’s portrayal of Pennywise establish the character as a horror icon, giving kids nightmares to this day. In a nutshell, the story is about seven friends who, as kids, defeated the malevolent force of Pennywise, only to return to their small town as adults to battle the monster again.

A property that both King fans and horror fans hold so dear is already creating supporters and haters. With Hollywood’s recent track record with remakes, fans fear what a money grab version of the film will be. On the other side of the fence, fans are excited to get another King story into theaters with the proper production behind it.

Looking at both sides of the case, we kick around some pros and cons for this remake.

PRO: More Pennywise The Clown

Outside of Pogo the Clown and the doll from Poltergeist, Pennywise is the standard bearer of evil clowns. People who haven’t even read the book or seen the miniseries recognize Pennywise.

While Tim Curry’s performance is classic, there’s enough material from the book to create a new take on the killer clown and its various shape-shifting forms. Just like that other painted face villain, The Joker, characters like these lend themselves to different interpretations because they’re larger than life. We’re The Millers actor Wil Poulter, was previously attached to play the clown but that’s still up in the air.

CON: No Tim Curry

Curry is Pennywise. No matter how good of a performance the next actor delivers, fans will nitpick it, pointing out the flaws in comparison to him. Jackie Earle Haley experienced this first hand when he played Freddy Krueger in the terrible 2010 A Nightmare on Elm Street remake. Even though that movie was bad, Haley wasn’t but that doesn’t matter as the role is forever linked to the originator, Robert Englund.

At 70 years old and recovering from a severe stroke, Curry’s out of the picture for those hoping for a return. As Stephen King himself once tweeted:

The remake of IT may be dead--or undead--but we'll always have Tim Curry. He's still floating down in the sewers of Derry.

— Stephen King (@StephenKing) May 25, 2015

PRO: Feature Film Quality Production

With Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema backing the production, this will easily be a $100 million plus project. That dwarfs anything the '90s miniseries could ever dream of putting together. So right off the bat you know the sets, stunts and special effects will be bigger and more polished. As a kid, I loved the miniseries (and still do) but looking at it today, the limitations of its budget are apparent. It looks like a TV movie, which it was. King’s novel deserves a grand, visually appealing theatrical film.

CON: All Fluff and No Substance

The thing about horror remakes and reimagining’s is that they look amazing and are jammed packed with CGI, but that’s about all you get. The stories are paper-thin and the characters are predictable and bland. Just because the project will have a $100 million budget doesn’t mean that the story will be worth that. What the miniseries lacked in visuals it made up for in creativity: in how Pennywise was used and presented; and the layered character dynamics amongst the friends (both as kids and adults).

PRO: Splitting the Film Into Two Films

In an exclusive interview with Collider, producer Roy Lee said of envisioning the project as two movies, “We’re taking it and making the movie from the point of view of the kids, and then making another movie from the point of view of the adults, that could potentially then be cut together like the novel. But it’s gonna be a really fun way of making this movie.”

Splitting the film into two parts helps the filmmaking team, giving them time to really develop the story and characters. They won’t have to cut out major sequences or combine elements due to runtime constraints.

CON: No Cary Fukunaga

Beasts of No Nation and True Detective (Season 1) director Cary Fukunaga—who was originally attached to write and direct—is no longer involved. That’s a major blow for fans and the production. New director Andy Muscetti only has Mama under his belt, which was a lackluster film, filled with weak CGI “scares.” So the production goes from being something special with a true auteur at the helm, to now having a so-so director that the studio can control and dictate the production.

In an interview with Variety, Fukunaga explained his departure, “It was being rejected. Every little thing was being rejected and asked for changes. Our conversations weren’t dramatic. It was just quietly acrimonious. We didn’t want to make the same movie.”

This path is a gamble for Warners and New Line since if the first movie is a dud and underperforms, that puts the second installment in jeopardy. Just ask Fox about the Fantastic Four and how planned sequels go.

Regardless of the backstage drama or who plays the new Pennywise, let’s hope moviegoers get to experience another sinister trip back down the sewers of Derry, ME.