"It" floats to the top of nearly every horror movie box office record following $123 million opening - Sensationalist Headlines

(that's $123 million just from here in the States. Worldwide puts it at about $180 million) [url]http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4323&p=.htm[/url] [quote] With a monster, $117 million opening weekend Warner Bros. and New Line's It has delivered a record-breaking opening, breathing a little life back into the slumping domestic box office.[B] The film has claimed the largest September opening, largest Fall opening, the largest opening for an R-rated horror film, not to mention the largest opening weekend for a horror film of any MPAA rating[/B], and tops Open Road's new release Home Again in second place by nearly $110 million. Overall, the film accounted for more than 75% of the combined gross for the weekend's top twelve, and we've only just begun. With an estimated $117 million, WB and New Line's It, an adaptation of the acclaimed Stephen King novel, claimed the weekend's #1 spot with ease, besting Open Road's new release of Home Again in second place by nearly $110 million, [B]the fifth largest gap between first and second place all-time. The film also dusted the previous opening weekend record for an R-rated horror film, more than doubling Paranormal Activity 3's previous record of $52.5 million. In fact, It is already the fifth highest grossing R-rated horror film all-time after just three days in release.[/B] The horror film's debut was the widest opening ever for an R-rated film and as such delivered the second largest opening for an R-rated movie behind Deadpool's $132.4 million opening last February. Additionally, the previous opening weekend record for September was held by Hotel Transylvania 2 with $48.5 million and the previous Fall opening weekend record was Gravity's $55.7 million, [B]neither of which stood a chance against It and combined don't even come within $10 million.[/B] [/quote] As far as worldwide gross goes it remains to be seen if it can become the all-time biggest horror movie film (which it probably won't given how freakish The Sixth Sense did worldwide, raking in $672 million), but as far as here in the States it could maybe have a chance to overtake Sixth Sense as #1 ($293 million), but if not second place is all but guaranteed. To top it off, this debut is following the worst Labor Day box office weekend in 17 years. [url]http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4322&p=.htm[/url] [quote]Speaking of which, should it make over $77.5 million it will have grossed more than the combined total for all films from last weekend ($77.5m) as well as the weekend prior ($69.1m). [/quote] All in all that's pretty fucking unheard for an R rated horror movie. And considering it was made for just $35 million the sequel [url=http://variety.com/2017/film/news/it-sequel-official-writer-gary-dauberman-1202550077/]was confirmed almost right away[/url] lmao. Also worth mentioning just how rough the production for this film was, as it was nearly set to shoot years ago with True Detective's Cary Fukanaga behind the camera before he walked away and had to be replaced, and the entire project had to be restarted, casting and partially the script included. Guess it worked out in the end tho lol.

IIRC, Fukunaga was replaced because of the studio being uncomfortable with the sexual themes of his script and how it involved children. The film you saw is pretty close to his original script, just with those elements removed.

[QUOTE=GayIlluminati;52667880]IIRC, Fukunaga was replaced because of the studio being uncomfortable with the sexual themes of his script and how it involved children. The film you saw is pretty close to his original script, just with those elements removed.[/QUOTE] Wait, did he try to have the underage gangbang in there?

[QUOTE=GayIlluminati;52667880]IIRC, Fukunaga was replaced because of the studio being uncomfortable with the sexual themes of his script and how it involved children. The film you saw is pretty close to his original script, just with those elements removed.[/QUOTE] There's a gangbang/orgy scene between the kids in the book and its ridiculous there and would've been more so on screen. Its removal will not be missed.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52667912]Wait, did he try to have the underage gangbang in there?[/QUOTE] The gangbang wasn't in his script. There was a scene where a woman made of blood masturbates and cums blood all over one of the kids, though.... Edit: the bully kid also rapes a horse and ejaculates on a birthday cake, if memory serves

Honestly that movie did some stuff I did NOT expect to see in any big screen movie and I was impressed.

[QUOTE=GayIlluminati;52667918]The gangbang wasn't in his script. There was a scene where a woman made of blood masturbates and cums blood all over one of the kids, though.... Edit: the bully kid also rapes a horse and ejaculates on a birthday cake, if memory serves[/QUOTE] I don't remember these being part of the book so wtf was he thinking

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;52667924]I don't remember these being part of the book so wtf was he thinking[/QUOTE] Honestly, it would've fit the tone of the original material well.

It is frustrating in that it's pretty bad but also a fun time, but at least it's success will open the door for more Big Horror that doesn't want to go through Blumhouse.

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;52667924]I don't remember these being part of the book so wtf was he thinking[/QUOTE] Oh, just your average Japanese things. It's in his blood. I'm pleasantly surprised and relieved to hear it might be a good movie, the trailers were promising. Especially after the depression that has been the last few months/years.

i am someone who is totally nonplussed when it comes to horror films and shit but goddamn i wanna watch it only reason i havent is because irma lmao

[QUOTE=Mr Anonymous;52667960]You think IT is a bad film?[/QUOTE] Maybe he's referring to the original? I mean, that thing is pretty bad.

[QUOTE=Mr Anonymous;52667960]You think IT is a bad film?[/QUOTE] Well it's not scary, so it's not good as a horror film, and most of the characters are trash, so it's not good as a soap opera. There's also a good amount of wankery for 1989, The Last Good Year To Be Alive. But the child dialogue is phenomenal and consistently entertaining. It would have been a great TV series, going past the 100 minute mark in a horror film is generally a bad sign. Notice how the token black kid and the bully disappear for almost an hour before the movie remembers to throw them back into the mix. It could have been paced a lot better than it was.

Imo it's an awful horror movie if you're not scared of clowns (barring the intro; that'll haunt me for a long time), but it's personally a fantastic movie from a comedic perspective. I burst out laughing in multiple instances where I'm [i]pretty[/i] sure their intention was to come off as horrific, but it's a fuckin' clown, so it ends up looking very silly to me. That said, I don't think the movie was bad. It had plenty of good qualities, but as a horror movie, it didn't do it for me. Figure it was probably a nightmare for anyone with a phobia for clowns, though.

[QUOTE=Mr Anonymous;52667908]It's an amazing film, so there is no doubt it would of done so well.[/QUOTE] For total box office yea for sure, but quality of the film really doesn't have much to do with opening weekend results IMO since there's not really any word of mouth yet (most film goers don't care about reviews). Shit films get huge openings all the time and it was probably just the fact clowns freak people out, the trailer was solid, there hasn't been any interesting films out in awhile, and most of all the fact barely anyone even went to the movies the last few weekends that drove these numbers up to such a crazy extent. The fact this film also happens to be really fucking good tho is gonna help out a lot with continuing to make mad cash for all the subsequent weekends.

So far, everyone I know that has seen it says it's really good. Glad to see a new King movie adaption that didn't flop.

[QUOTE=Mr Anonymous;52668179]Eh, I don't agree really. I didn't go and see IT because it was a new horror movie, I went and saw it because it was a remake of what was originally a great film at the time and I wanted to know how it would stacked up to the original - and I think most people are the same? Though I don't know.[/QUOTE] I mean yea obviously we can only speculate but I really doubt most people that went and see this movie had any knowledge of the original old ass miniseries. It's popular sure but it's not THAT popular. imo most of your typical film goers don't care about a films history or reviews or whatever and just go watch whatever had a kewl trailer. But ofc I'm only speculating really so who knows for sure

[QUOTE=Asaratha;52668262]i agree that those two characters disappearing for a while was a bit off, but can you actually reason why the "characters are trash"? hard to discuss "its not scary" bcuz thats completely subjective, and while i didnt find the movie scary myself i recognize that it was still horror none the less (and well done horror at that)[/QUOTE] Besides Bill, Beverly, and Ben, the rest of the kids were all one-note, which is normally fine for horror, but not for a 2 hour plus movie where [sp]none of them die[/sp] It is way funnier than it is scary. It would've been a great Apatow film, and maybe an actually great horror movie if they kept all the weird Fukunaga bits, but that just goes to show how hard King is to adapt. Regardless, it's remarkably tame for being rated R, outside of all the penis jokes. I'd definitely recommend it as a fun Summer blockbuster, but not for anyone looking for a good scare.

Hopefully this combined with stuff like Deadpool and Logan means we'll stop getting those gimped PG-13 movies that want to be hardcore but the MPAA wont let them.

[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;52668296]Besides Bill, Beverly, and Ben, the rest of the kids were all one-note, which is normally fine for horror, but not for a 2 hour plus movie where [sp]none of them die[/sp] It is way funnier than it is scary. It would've been a great Apatow film, and maybe an actually great horror movie if they kept all the weird Fukunaga bits, but that just goes to show how hard King is to adapt. Regardless, it's remarkably tame for being rated R, outside of all the penis jokes. I'd definitely recommend it as a fun Summer blockbuster, but not for anyone looking for a good scare.[/QUOTE] [sp]It's being praised for sticking to the book. Why would they suddenly flip the story and go 'lol fuck the book, mike dies now'?????[/sp] I watched it today and I loved it. As someone who read the book and loved the 90's version, I feel like this film was sort of on the opposite side of the horror scale. The 90's version was creepy...but not too scary. On the other hand, this felt like there was more of a focus on "BOO! A clown!" and that isn't exactly a bad thing, considering we're talking about a murderous clown here. I liked the interactions between the kids (let's not talk about mike) and Finn Wolfhard's version of Richie made me laugh multiple times. My only concern is that [sp]Chapter Two won't live up to expectations - which is a shame because I much prefer the second part of the story cos it isn't afraid to pull a "Sorta...Happy Ending ish?" stunt.[/sp]

I still gotta go see it but a lot of people I've spoken to has said it doesn't come close to as good as the 90's miniseries

[QUOTE=Asaratha;52668311]"the characters are trash" "how?" "sorry i mean like 2-3 of them" i genuinely dont understand how you can think Eddie, and Richie are one note? i can agree that stan and mike feel underused/probably one-note, but denoting the entire cast of characters as "trash" is dumb[/QUOTE] Eddie is a hypochondriac and also....? Honestly can't remember the names of any other character because there wasn't anything to them. Jewish kid was Jewish, black kid was black, the bully was a bully and so on. So yes, when over half the cast can't expand past their cliche "role", even with over TWO HOURS to play with, it is trash. The fact that the actors are good doesn't change that the actual characters suck. [QUOTE=Owlz?;52668397][sp]It's being praised for sticking to the book. Why would they suddenly flip the story and go 'lol fuck the book, mike dies now'?????[/sp][/QUOTE] I'm not debating whether It was a good adaptation or not, I never read the book so I wouldn't know. Even if It follows the source material, that doesn't mean it worked as a movie. There's a reason the 1990 version was a television series, the scope of the story doesn't gel with your typical horror movie format.

The movie is fun. It's not good, it really isn't. From a lot of technical standpoints, really eh cgi, non-stop stream of attempted jump scares, and a lack of character development. While it isn't technically very good it is very entertaining to watch.

[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;52668913]Eddie is a hypochondriac and also....? Honestly can't remember the names of any other character because there wasn't anything to them. Jewish kid was Jewish, black kid was black, the bully was a bully and so on. So yes, when over half the cast can't expand past their cliche "role", even with over TWO HOURS to play with, it is trash. The fact that the actors are good doesn't change that the actual characters suck. I'm not debating whether It was a good adaptation or not, I never read the book so I wouldn't know. Even if It follows the source material, that doesn't mean it worked as a movie. There's a reason the 1990 version was a television series, the scope of the story doesn't gel with your typical horror movie format.[/QUOTE] the 1990s version will end up being shorter than the two newer movies. it's 3 hours in runtime, cut into two parts. the first new movie alone is 2 hours and there's still another half to go. i think the characters got a lot of characterization in the new movie, especially considering there was 7 of them. try characterizing 7 main characters in two hours. it's tough. but i genuinely think the movie did it. each had their one schtick of course but they felt a lot realer than just that. it could in part be the wonderful performances, but they felt real. just because they each had an immediate, defining feature, doesn't mean that's all they had. it was a spectacular movie, with some flaws for sure. but the characters was one of its strongest suits. they were full of life and a joy to watch. they interacted realistically with eachother and they nail the feeling of being a kid. i think you're confusing their defining characteristic with their only characteristic. the rest of their character was more subtle and harder to describe but it's there, and you can feel it. my biggest complaints are too much cgi pennywise, too many big loud BWAAMMM scares, but other than that it was still wonderful.

[QUOTE=Asaratha;52668311]"the characters are trash" "how?" "sorry i mean like 2-3 of them" i genuinely dont understand how you can think Eddie, and Richie are one note? i can agree that stan and mike feel underused/probably one-note, but denoting the entire cast of characters as "trash" is dumb[/QUOTE] In the 1990 version all the kids have well-developed introductions and very individual traits that each end up being critical in the lead-up to and the first fight with It. [sp]1.) Bill loses his little brother = opening premise for the film, plus he's the de facto leader and main protagonist. obviously that stays consistent. 2.) Mike is the new kid and a history buff = we get background on the monster and on Derry, plus a lead into part 2 since he decides to stay in Maine. he's the deuteragonist. 3.) Ben is a poet and a romantic = development coincides with Bev and Bill and creates some level of tension that leads to things in part 2. plus, he's one of the first members in the Losers. 4.) Stan is a skeptic = he's the last Loser to acknowledge It's existence, and that serves to completely unify the group so they can decide to kill it together. he's also the only one who gets a full view of the deadlights and that plays a role in his later suicide as an adult. 5.) Beverly is the best shot out of the whole group = she's the ace in the hole for killing It. 6.) Eddie is sickly but has a huge spirit = he uses his inhaler to subdue the monster long enough for Bev to kill it. 7.) Richie is a class clown = comedic relief, but more importantly acts as a foil to Henry and probably provoked his underlying murderous qualities that led to him trying to kill all the kids in the sewer. Now, the new version. 1.) Bill loses his little brother = premise for the film and he's the leader. Ok, that hasn't changed much. 2.) Mike is the black kid I guess? and he gets to kill Henry. the history/background is relegated to Ben. 3.) Ben is a poet AND a history buff AND he's the new kid AND the new deuteragonist. this is too much focus on one character for a movie with 7 main characters. 4.) Stan is Jewish I guess? what the fuck did he even do in this movie? 5.) Beverly is a damsel in distress now, but she manages to inadvertently reunite the others by getting abducted. 6.) Eddie is there I guess? he hurts himself and that shot of his broken ass arm was probably the scariest thing in the whole goddamn movie. 7.) Richie is a class clown. and he's afraid of clowns. that's it.[/sp] I don't think calling the new characters trash is unfair. Strong acting aside, the writers neutered the characters and what made them all unique and necessary to the plot. There was too much going on with Bill, Ben, and Bev (that doesn't make them strong characters, by the way) and not nearly enough going on with the others.

I thought it was fantastic. Right after it ended, I decided it was a fantastic film that I hoped never to see again. It had the usual jumpscares, but I think it would be dishonest to say that's all it had. Its horror was really subtle in some parts, which increased the tension so fucking well and so masterfully. For example, a lot of the TVs were being controlled by IT. It's a detail you can notice or not, but noticing it makes the scene scarier for it.

I can say that the movie was well made, but its really Ehhhhh as a "great horror movie" imo, it gets more praise than it deserves. It seems there just hasnt been too much going on in the movie, but at times - too fucking much. It seriously feels like a summer blockbuster you will probably never revisit.

This might just be me, but I felt like a lot of the "jumpscares" worked for it. Don't get me wrong, if it had ALL been jumpscares it would've been awful. The movie did a great job building tension and dread. But I felt like the BOO! moments contributed to the overall shift in tone in the movie. Jumpscares are only ever scary once. They get less scary as time goes on. So it feels like we, as an audience, are experiencing this shift along with the main characters. Pennywise is terrifying in his first few scenes because we only get a limited scope of him. By the end of the film we, along with the protagonists, have been exposed to him so much our attitude shifts from "JESUS CHRIST" to "Oh fuck OFF already, clown." It makes that savage beatdown on a clown by seven children all the more satisfying.

My only complaint was that Pennywise had a few chances to kill off some of the kids and it almost felt like he intentionally avoided it. I know that the kids "taste better when they're afraid", but anyone would be shitting their pants at what he does in this movie if they saw it irl

I think people are just desperate for it to be better than it is. A lot of jump scares, jump cuts. Also yea pennywise is apparently fucking awful at everything. Also the thing about choosing to pay attention or not to the tv is bullshit. The movie doesn't do anything that isn't incredibly on the nose.