IT (2017) General Discussion - Film, Television and Music

[url]http://www.thewrap.com/box-office-predictions-balloon-record-bursting-60-million-opening/[/url] [quote]‘It’ Box Office Predictions Balloon to Record-Bursting $60 Million Opening" ... Last week, the first round of tracking had the remake of Stephen King’s seminal horror tale making $50 million in its opening weekend. Now, those numbers have floated up to $60 million, [B]a figure that would give “It” the biggest theatrical debut in horror movie history[/B] as well as the biggest opening for any film released in September. ... What would make this new record particularly impressive is the film’s R rating... Aside from “Hannibal” and “Paranormal Activity 3,” there are no horror films among the top 25 biggest R-rated openings.[/quote] good Also keep in mind this would come just after the worst Labor Day Weekend box office result in the last 17 years.

I'm seeing a lot of positive reviews across the board. I'm fucking floored by how much positive reception this movie is getting, it's insane.

there is never any reason to doubt me my friend

Just a few more days till this is out! I haven't seen a good scary movie in awhile so really excited

Going to see it tonight. First midnight release ever for me. They even announced that a guy in a pennywise suit is going to randomly scare people.

With all the bullshit that has been happening in the world, I'm glad we can say we got an actual good adaption of IT. Probs gonna see it tomorrow, I haven't been this excited for a film in a while!

Man, this movie is REALLY good. It took all the good parts from the original and made it better.

It's rating on RT right now is very convincing. Can't wait to check it out. Also, Perri's reaction is hyping me up even more now. I follow her on Collider Movie Talk and I agree with her on most things.

the movie is ruined because my country and its censorship. most of the scenes are removed, plots, modivations, how characters meet, all removed for some reason. idk if its because of what they said or did, this is way more than removing kissing scenes. im going to watch it on bluray or something when it comes

[QUOTE=e_k_M;52658611]the movie is ruined because my country and its censorship. most of the scenes are removed, plots, modivations, how characters meet, all removed for some reason. idk if its because of what they said or did, this is way more than removing kissing scenes. im going to watch it on bluray or something when it comes[/QUOTE] That fucking sucks to hear man, hopefully the blu-ray isn't censored either.

Saw it. It is spectacular. Loved all about it. Also lil thig i noticed : [sp] wheb benny (i think thats his name?) Is in library getting through the pages, behind him there is old lady out of focus that suddenly stops and grins viciously at camera's direction [/sp] I can't be the only one who saw it, right?

[QUOTE=e_k_M;52658611]the movie is ruined because my country and its censorship. most of the scenes are removed, plots, modivations, how characters meet, all removed for some reason. idk if its because of what they said or did, this is way more than removing kissing scenes. im going to watch it on bluray or something when it comes[/QUOTE] I really hope it didn't cost you very much. That's like paying to go see a modern-day trailer.

[QUOTE=karimatrix;52658776]Saw it. It is spectacular. Loved all about it. Also lil thig i noticed : [sp] wheb benny (i think thats his name?) Is in library getting through the pages, behind him there is old lady out of focus that suddenly stops and grins viciously at camera's direction [/sp] I can't be the only one who saw it, right?[/QUOTE] yeah she was staring at him grinning the entire time, i noticed that. i figure it was pennywise just doin some shit

[QUOTE=postal;52652649][url]http://www.thewrap.com/box-office-predictions-balloon-record-bursting-60-million-opening/[/url] [quote]‘It’ Box Office Predictions Balloon to Record-Bursting $60 Million Opening" ... Last week, the first round of tracking had the remake of Stephen King’s seminal horror tale making $50 million in its opening weekend. Now, those numbers have floated up to $60 million, [B]a figure that would give “It” the biggest theatrical debut in horror movie history[/B] as well as the biggest opening for any film released in September. ... What would make this new record particularly impressive is the film’s R rating... Aside from “Hannibal” and “Paranormal Activity 3,” there are no horror films among the top 25 biggest R-rated openings.[/quote] good Also keep in mind this would come just after the worst Labor Day Weekend box office result in the last 17 years.[/QUOTE] Update to this, final predictions are in from box office mojo: [url]http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4322&p=.htm[/url] [quote][B]With the worst August in twenty years and worst summer in over ten years now behind us[/B], this weekend will turn up the heat as Fall 2017 gets underway. Debuting in over 4,100 theaters, Warner Bros. and New Line's adaptation of Stephen King's It is looking to break more than just a few records while Open Road's Home Again starring Reese Witherspoon will quietly target a much smaller audience as a counter-programming option. ... All told, [B]we're forecasting an $85 million opening and anything higher wouldn't be a surprise[/B]. The film has clearly come at the right time, arriving on the heels of the two worst weekends of the year so far. Speaking of which, [B]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).[/B] [/quote] that's pretty nuts. especially since it was only made for $35 million. yeaaa I think it's safe to say the sequel is definitely gonna happen now lol.

Saw it. Solid movie. Not spectacular but I liked it

[QUOTE=Robman8908;52658780]I really hope it didn't cost you very much. That's like paying to go see a modern-day trailer.[/QUOTE] it cost me 90 qatari ryials (25 dollars) which is shitty. my sister is most upset about it

Really enjoyed it as a huge fan of the book, but it had some minor issues imo. Pacing seemed off to me, like everything was just happening so quickly with little time for a breather. [sp]Also I'm sad we didn't get more of Henry and his gang, I mean he just went mad for a minute and then fell down a fucking well. It would have been great to have him and his friends chase the losers into the sewers. Also they just kind of beat Pennywise by beating the shit out of him[/sp] Didn't find it scary so much but I'm still really pleased with how it came out. I really hope we get some form of a directors cut or something when it releases on blu-ray.

[QUOTE=Thechuz1337;52660409]Really enjoyed it as a huge fan of the book, but it had some minor issues imo. Pacing seemed off to me, like everything was just happening so quickly with little time for a breather. [sp]Also I'm sad we didn't get more of Henry and his gang, I mean he just went mad for a minute and then fell down a fucking well. It would have been great to have him and his friends chase the losers into the sewers. Also they just kind of beat Pennywise by beating the shit out of him[/sp] Didn't find it scary so much but I'm still really pleased with how it came out. I really hope we get some form of a directors cut or something when it releases on blu-ray.[/QUOTE] I thought it was an alright movie. Friend loathed it though. [sp]The Scary, Very Scary and Not Scary At All Doors were clever though[/sp]

[QUOTE=e_k_M;52660368]it cost me 90 qatari ryials (25 dollars) which is shitty. my sister is most upset about it[/QUOTE] Wow, that's brutal. Over here it's like 8 USD for simple imax (non-3D basicly).

This was pretty damn good, I must say. I had zero faith in this until I saw the trailer and it delivered. And it's been a long time since I've sat in a movie where the audience is screaming right along with the film, so that was fun.

I watched it last night and I was honestly very happy with it, especially as a longtime fan of the book and original movie. I think my main gripe, as Thechuz1337 mentioned, was with the overall pacing. It just felt a little too fast at certain points. A couple of the scenes also had sound effects were a little overdone IMO, but aside from that I loved it. A few people even entered the theater with IT masks on, and a few others were dressed like Georgie. It was definitely a fun time. I can't wait for the second part to happen.

[QUOTE=postal;52659641]Update to this, final predictions are in from box office mojo: [url]http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4322&p=.htm[/url] that's pretty nuts. especially since it was only made for $35 million. yeaaa I think it's safe to say the sequel is definitely gonna happen now lol.[/QUOTE] It's definitely going to be higher than $85mil imo [url]http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/weekend-box-office-it-movie-scares-up-record-thursday-night-1036714[/url] [quote]There is nothing clownish about It, which grossed a massive $51 million on Friday from 4,103 theaters[/quote] On top of the 13.5 mil thursday night. Even the article thinks it's going to be north of 100mil in the exact same sentence Things It has accomplished -Biggest start for a horror film -Biggest Sept. Opening -Top horror opening -biggest friday for R-rated movie -Biggest Thursday showing for R rated movie They're already planning a sequel for 2019

And speaking of the sequel planning, the kids have listed their dream actors for the adult cast: Christian Bale for Bill Denborough Jessica Chastain for Bev Marsh Bill Hader for Richie Tozier Chris Pratt as Ben Hanscom Chadwick Boseman for Mike Hanlon Jake Gyllenhaal for Eddie Kaspbrak Joseph Gordon-Levitt for Stan Uris I can't really argue with the choices, since they're all pretty spot on imo, despite some of them being pretty unlikely, namely the ones tied up with Marvel at the moment. However, I think they might be able to snag JGL for Stan considering [sp]he'd only need to show up for 1-2 days and, being a big name actor, being killed off rather quickly would be shocking as hell for those unfamiliar with the story.[/sp]

Just get Seth Green back as Richie

First weekend box office estimate is in [url]http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4323&p=.htm[/url] [quote]'It' Devours Competition with Record-Breaking [B]$117 Million Opening[/B] ... 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. [/quote] that's pretty fucking mental as far as R rated horror movies go

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;52667942]There was too much of a time between the 1990 TV film and the actual theatrical movie that I think it'll take a while, but I can almost guarantee this is gonna be the definitive version to the general public when they think of "It". Just give it a few years. It wasn't as great as I was expecting, but it was still very good and I'd much rather have something like this making money than literally anything in theaters right now. Plus, it feels great having a Stephen King film in theaters and have it not be godawful. [editline]10th September 2017[/editline] It's more of a lightly spooky summertime movie than a "visceral horror film" like a lot of people are calling it.[/QUOTE] I felt the same way. It was really fun in that it had a bunch of goofy spooks that had the audience laughing and having a good time. The only moments of genuine unnerving fear involved non-supernatural stuff (Bev and dad scenes, the creepy background lady that was grinning at Ben for the whole scene in the library before the [sp]headless dude showed up[/sp], etc). I was expecting the one supernatural scare with the projector to have some restraint and end it with just Pennywise appearing in the pictures. But that ended up being the goofiest scare of the entire movie (although it was also great in a "oh shit they took it one step further than in the trailer, I thought I had this scene figured out!" sense). It's pretty weird how violent the movie is, especially against children, but it really feels light-hearted in a sense. The best stuff in the movie was definitely the bantz between the kids, they were great. Just wish the rest of the Losers Club were as well fleshed out as Bill and Bev. Same with the Bowers Gang.

It's hands down my favourite book. Really really enjoyed the film. My only complaint is [sp]the treatment of Mike's character - most of his role being shafted to Ben and then Mike not used for most of the film. You don't get the sense he's a friend of the group- just a guy that's there to bring a cattle gun. And the third act is a little rushed. Henry killed off quickly. All the friends get back together instantly. Pennywise just goes away after a quick fight. Bev being a damsel in distress just to move the plot quicker.[/sp] Really loved it though. Favourite of the year. Great adaptation. Concerned about Part 2 after Muschietti's comments on Mike. [sp]He wants to turn him into a stoner junkie type. What's his problem with Mike, the character has been shafted in this version. He's a second narrator in the book and vital to defeating and understanding It. Why stick to the book so closely for 95% of the story and then keep changing Mike. He's supposed to be the fundamentally good bookish guy who waits 27 years. Loving bond with his dad. I hope he doesn't stick to that path. Fukunaga was dropped for moving too far from the book and Muschietti was the one that brought all the book scenes back. If you're gonna go too far from the source material mayswell of kept Fukunaga.[/sp]

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;52668099]Yeah, my biggest complaint was honestly that it wasn't a full three hour film because the kids worked so well for the movie. [sp] also the way they brought Bev back with that January Embers shit was really cheesy and awful [/sp] They weren't just "surprisingly passable" like they were in 1990, I really believed these kids were friends. I hope there's a director's cut because this has always been my favorite part of the whole "It" story and with the cast they got, I'd love to see more.[/QUOTE] Yeah, considering how the final act turned out there's hopefully going to be some deleted scenes.

As a fan of the 1990 version, I didn't like this movie. I figured they wouldn't do a 1:1 remake because that would be pretty dumb but I felt like they just changed too much around in a bad way and added a lot of unnecessary shit that didn't contribute to the narrative at all. To be fair, I haven't read the book and I heard this movie follows it more closely, but hear me out. [sp]This relied quite a bit on jumpscares and I didn't care for that very much. There were some pretty cool horror sequences, though. The bit with the projector was pretty dope. I like what they did with Pennywise and his deadlights too. The characters and their development felt neutered. Mike and Bev really suffered from this. Bev was downgraded to a damsel-in-distress. Mike had his history buff trait pulled and given to Ben for some reason - Mike's only real role in this is stopping Henry. Stan's skepticism was removed entirely and I always felt like that was a pretty critical part of his character. I didn't mind them changing the kids' backstories around, but they did it so much that some of the kids were essentially made into background props. You could probably ditch Stan, Mike, and even Eddie without much consequence to the rest of the events in the film - great bants, but they were kinda useless, weren't they? In contrast, each kid in the 1990 version was very fleshed out and individual and had some critical part to play. And I guess Henry's just fucking dead now? Unless they pull some bullshit in the next movie about how he survived at the bottom of the well for 27 years... Why did they feel the need to explain what "they float down here" means? It was always some bizarro statement that was interesting because you could only guess what he really meant by it. The mystery behind it was what made it scary. That reveal at the end with the corpses floating around the tower thing might've been the dumbest part of the whole movie for me. So, so unnecessary. Why did they have to go for the "haunted house at the end of the street" trope? I mean, what? All the sequences in the house felt like stuff they could've done anywhere else in the movie. The house was totally unnecessary. Why did Bev's dad go from abusive possessive burnout father to implied sexually abusive burnout father? It didn't add anything to the film at all aside from being the catalyst for cutting her hair, and I guess it gave Pennywise an extra way to fuck with her? It just didn't seem to me like making him sexually abusive as opposed to just physically abusive and possessive contributed significantly to the narrative they were going for, and instead made it seem like something dark and edgy that they included to be fashionable with modern audiences. I can see why they would want to make the dad seem as monstrous as possible but the movie already -has- an evil, conniving monster and this whole sub-plot draws focus away in an immersion-breaking "too real" kind of way. Maybe it was intended to reinforce the "save the girl at the end" thing? I don't know, but I have problems with it. Since It relies on their belief and their imagination, I can understand why the kids were able to subdue It in the end with random weapons. But it seemed like the fight was cheapened without the silver ammo, or at least without some exposition since it's supposed to be a supernatural being and the kids know that. They made a pretty big deal about that in the '90 version. Still, that's probably the least of my problems with the movie.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Furioso;52668463]As a fan of the 1990 version, I didn't like this movie. I figured they wouldn't do a 1:1 remake because that would be pretty dumb but I felt like they just changed too much around in a bad way and added a lot of unnecessary shit that didn't contribute to the narrative at all. To be fair, I haven't read the book and I heard this movie follows it more closely, but hear me out. [sp]Why did they feel the need to explain what "they float down here" means? It was always some bizarro statement that was interesting because you could only guess what he really meant by it. The mystery behind it was what made it scary. That reveal at the end with the corpses floating around the tower thing might've been the dumbest part of the whole movie for me. So, so unnecessary. Why did they have to go for the "haunted house at the end of the street" trope? I mean, what? All the sequences in the house felt like stuff they could've done anywhere else in the movie. The house was totally unnecessary. Why did Bev's dad go from abusive possessive burnout father to implied sexually abusive burnout father? It didn't add anything to the film at all aside from being the catalyst for cutting her hair, and I guess it gave Pennywise an extra way to fuck with her? It just didn't seem to me like making him sexually abusive as opposed to just physically abusive and possessive contributed significantly to the narrative they were going for, and instead made it seem like something dark and edgy that they included to be fashionable with modern audiences. I can see why they would want to make the dad seem as monstrous as possible but the movie already -has- an evil, conniving monster and this whole sub-plot draws focus away in an immersion-breaking "too real" kind of way. Maybe it was intended to reinforce the "save the girl at the end" thing? I don't know, but I have problems with it.[/sp][/QUOTE] I think it's a bit unfair to criticise the film for adapting stuff from the book just because the 90s version didn't. All of that was from the book. Maybe not the [sp]sexual abuse, but that's a left over from the Fukunaga script which had scenes where Bev's dad has actual intercourse with her on screen. Taking off her panties. Kissing her stomach. You can find forums online where parents of child actors talk about how horrific it is. Thankfully all dropped. But ultimately it's because in the book all the people of Derry are just as evil as Pennywise. Not just Henry and his gang (who wank eachother off in the woods and one has a wank while torturing an animal), but everybody. I think the very dark and sexual nature of the book, if anything, wasn't potent enough in this adaptation[/sp]. I've not seen all the 90s TV version because I find the tone of it really hard to enjoy as a big fan of the book. Maybe it just hasn't aged well but I really don't enjoy it. So I don't know what happens there but in the book [sp]they just kick the shit out of It. Like they do in the film. They try the silver bullet in the haunted house and it doesn't work. So they go to It's lair where It turns into a spider and they go into another dimension where they prove they're not scared of It and then they literally punch him to death and he runs away. Fully agree with you on Mike and Bev though. I thought Stan was sufficiently sceptical. He refused to accept Pennywise exists. Refuses to go into the sewer at the start. Refuses to go to the house. At the end he's attacked and is very upset at his friends. Then he's the first of the group to leave (symbolic of his being the first death probably). Worth pointing out the kids don't know what happens to Henry in the book either. He gets lost in the sewers and is found washed up in The Barrens where the police arrest him for the murders. I imagine he'll be washed up again and follow the same plot. A nice twist if the audience thinks he's dead. OR they'll kill him off because he effectively serves the same role as Bev's husband Tom so maybe they'll just combine the roles for Chapter 2[/sp] On a totally separate note: Chapter 1 not Part 1? Chapters implies more than 2 surely? Do you think like every other Horror film this is going to get a franchise treatment? Some of the Pennywise past events they describe in this film weren't in the book. I feel after Part 2 we're going to get "It Origins" etc.