f13.net

f13.net General Forums => Movies => Topic started by: schild on March 29, 2017, 11:11:33 AM



Title: IT
Post by: schild on March 29, 2017, 11:11:33 AM
(actual trailer)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW49r5_w3ts

it's perfect


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on March 29, 2017, 11:13:46 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/RLtZ3x1.jpg)

IT'S PERFECT


Title: Re: IT
Post by: 01101010 on March 29, 2017, 11:17:14 AM
Wow... I'm not big into horror or Stephan King, but damn this looks like I might have to watch


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Shannow on March 29, 2017, 11:28:52 AM
It's so fucking good it's a guarantee I will never ever see this movie. fuuuck that!


Title: Re: IT
Post by: HaemishM on March 29, 2017, 11:49:16 AM
They better offer adult diapers with the price of admission.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on March 29, 2017, 01:32:49 PM
after watching it 50 times

i'm basically convinced it's gonna be the horror movie of the decade


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Ironwood on March 29, 2017, 01:43:19 PM
 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on March 29, 2017, 01:46:12 PM
i accidentally a word

it's gone now


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Ironwood on March 29, 2017, 01:50:22 PM
This is gonna be another I Am Legend, isn't it ?  You haven't geeked out like this in a while.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on March 29, 2017, 01:58:24 PM
uh

this isn't a will smith summer blockbuster

it's 2.5 hours of stephen king with a huge budget taken to screen

arguably the best stephen king

ironwood, that scene with the hands coming out of the giant furnace, that's called the black spot, where a bunch of white supremacists burned black soldiers at a club

that's the kind of movie this is

and they're gonna go the distance


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Ironwood on March 29, 2017, 02:08:14 PM
I've read the book.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on March 29, 2017, 02:09:43 PM
This looks a lot better than the previous incarnation. That said, holy fuck.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: calapine on March 29, 2017, 02:13:07 PM
F13 sucking clown cock!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Ironwood on March 29, 2017, 02:14:09 PM
Yeah, bring on the spider at the end and the time when all the kids fuck the girl to get out the sewers.  It'll be rad.  RAD.

Also, Georgie keeps his arm there.  Didn't he get that's shit ripped off ?



Title: Re: IT
Post by: Soulflame on March 29, 2017, 02:48:06 PM
That trailer is very good.

I don't think 2.5 hours is long enough to truly do the story justice.  Also, all the other attempts to bring IT to video.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on March 29, 2017, 02:52:08 PM
This'll just be the section when they were kids. So, 2.5 should be fine.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Merusk on March 29, 2017, 03:06:51 PM
Yeah, bring on the spider at the end and the time when all the kids fuck the girl to get out the sewers.  It'll be rad.  RAD.

Also, Georgie keeps his arm there.  Didn't he get that's shit ripped off ?



Yes, but he wasn't dead yet. I don't know if IT appeared with or without the arm when taunting his brother.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on March 29, 2017, 05:51:19 PM
Yeah, bring on the spider at the end and the time when all the kids fuck the girl to get out the sewers.  It'll be rad.  RAD.

Also, Georgie keeps his arm there.  Didn't he get that's shit ripped off ?



Everyone always brings up them running a train on Beverly

It's not that important that they keep it in the movie

As for the spider, they already said they switched incarnations to fit modern horror better.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Velorath on March 29, 2017, 05:54:01 PM
That looked like a standard movie trailer to me. There's nothing to suggest that they've majorly fucked anything up, but there's also no indication that as a movie that is going to have to largely be carried by the performances of a group of child actors that this is going to be the "horror movie of the decade".


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on March 29, 2017, 09:55:12 PM
That looked like a standard movie trailer to me. There's nothing to suggest that they've majorly fucked anything up, but there's also no indication that as a movie that is going to have to largely be carried by the performances of a group of child actors that this is going to be the "horror movie of the decade".
I guess we're just gonna have to see. /shruggyguy


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Fabricated on March 31, 2017, 10:29:36 AM
The trailer has a strong "We tried really hard not to fuck this up" look/feel to it that is encouraging.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on March 31, 2017, 11:08:02 AM
https://youtu.be/Dum2zneWLTc


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Cadaverine on March 31, 2017, 12:29:35 PM
Not a big fan of the color desaturation.  Not that keen on them changing it from the 50's to the 80's either.  Still looks worth watching.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: HaemishM on March 31, 2017, 01:01:56 PM
Changing the timeline sort of makes sense, to appeal to more modern audience. I'm not sure it will make as much sense for the black character to be so out of place to join these kids as he would have been in the 50's.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Soulflame on March 31, 2017, 01:18:15 PM
You haven't been up north much, have you...

Believe me, totally accurate.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on March 31, 2017, 02:09:06 PM
Yeah, sadly it's still not unusual to hit pockets where nigger is used freely, amid other less savory epithets. Since President Von Clownstick assumed the throne, I would say my little town has gotten noticeably worse, which really blows.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on March 31, 2017, 02:10:22 PM
There's more black people in Derry than there are in Austin.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Sir T on April 01, 2017, 01:57:12 PM
As for the spider, they already said they switched incarnations to fit modern horror better.

So they will just have Tim Curry sans makeup grinning at them as the True Form.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Soulflame on April 01, 2017, 04:01:15 PM
They could go very terrifying, and have Willem Dafoe.

Or go all out, and have Gary Busey.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Cheddar on April 02, 2017, 04:58:51 PM
I cannot wait.  I was a skeptic until this preview.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on July 27, 2017, 11:36:51 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKJmEC5ieOk

oh my sweet shit.

edit: http://imgur.com/a/xwbHp


Title: Re: IT
Post by: HaemishM on July 27, 2017, 11:54:53 AM
Welp, I shit myself.  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on July 27, 2017, 02:27:45 PM
Jesus fuck. The original was kinda campy scary, parts of that were just fucking terrifying. Who's takin their kids to see it?


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Mandella on July 27, 2017, 03:07:59 PM
You guys are really making it hard for me to not click on those links.

 :psyduck:

I don't think it's aimed at kids, is it?


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Ginaz on July 27, 2017, 04:57:46 PM
I am terrified of clowns.  Always have been.  Fuck this movie.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Lucas on July 27, 2017, 05:14:59 PM
Another awesome trailer for this movie, can't wait.

The Dark Tower ones, on the other hand...Nah, don't even wanna get started on those.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on July 27, 2017, 05:44:30 PM
Yea what a world where The Dark Tower looks shit and IT looks fucking incredible.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Cheddar on July 27, 2017, 07:26:43 PM
Jesus.  Fucking.  Christ.  This will be the first movie I watch on opening day since Terminator 2.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Draegan on July 27, 2017, 08:19:32 PM
I wonder if I can make my wife and I atch it.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on August 04, 2017, 06:38:12 AM
https://youtu.be/1uhv6sb83yM

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on August 23, 2017, 08:19:11 PM
Seeing it Friday, September 8th, at 3PM. Huzzah.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Shannow on August 23, 2017, 10:34:04 PM
fucknofucknofucknofucknofucknofuckno


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on August 30, 2017, 12:45:50 AM
My hype for this movie has broken ALL reasonable levels.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Ironwood on August 30, 2017, 06:20:25 AM
I hope it works out for you.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on August 30, 2017, 08:51:50 AM
It 100% fucking will.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Phildo on August 30, 2017, 08:52:20 AM
It 100% fucking will.

Schild is getting Phantom Menaced.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on August 30, 2017, 08:56:45 AM
Am not.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Samwise on August 30, 2017, 09:37:38 AM
My hype for this movie has broken ALL reasonable levels.

Are we talking "fucking be there" WITH twitch-based combat?


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on August 30, 2017, 09:50:12 AM
My hype for this movie has broken ALL reasonable levels.
Are we talking "fucking be there" WITH twitch-based combat?
no man we're talking total remaster of diablo 2


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Ironwood on August 30, 2017, 10:26:37 AM
I genuinely hope it works out.  The trailers look 'right' despite initial fears about Pennywise.

It would be nice to have a proper stab at IT (pun) as a horror film and remove some of the utter dross that was in the novel.  It could be genuinely fucking terrifying and, again, the trailers make it look like they might actually GET that.

So.

Hope it all works out.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Soulflame on August 30, 2017, 12:36:10 PM
My hype for this movie has broken ALL reasonable levels.
Are we talking "fucking be there" WITH twitch-based combat?
no man we're talking total remaster of diablo 2

First, I was excited.

Then I remembered - that was done by Blizzard North.

Now I am sad.

OTOH, I am completely stoked to see IT.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on August 30, 2017, 02:08:50 PM
So, Diablo 3 then?


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Sir T on August 30, 2017, 06:38:37 PM
You will be stoked Neph-EYE-lem


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Ginaz on August 30, 2017, 08:55:36 PM
My hype for this movie has broken ALL reasonable levels.

Are we talking "fucking be there" WITH twitch-based combat?

Ok, that was good. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Soulflame on August 30, 2017, 11:24:00 PM
So, Diablo 3 then?


Now... Diablo 3 isn't a bad game...

*trails off*

I just want an improved Diablo 2.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Teleku on August 31, 2017, 02:01:07 AM
It was bad.  Then they made it great.  Then they made it terrible again.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 04, 2017, 11:53:18 AM
Five days.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 06, 2017, 10:29:48 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/QzykQ0P.png)

THREE DAYS


Title: Re: IT
Post by: HaemishM on September 06, 2017, 11:03:59 AM
BE...

THERE.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Merusk on September 06, 2017, 12:44:59 PM
Some Police Department is tying red balloons to sewer grates. Quite amusing.

https://www.facebook.com/LititzBoroughPoliceDepartment/posts/2065659250126418?pnref=story


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Teleku on September 06, 2017, 08:56:40 PM
No, some pranksters are tying red balloons to grates, and the Police department is kindly asking them to stop as the act of removing them is terrifying.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Khaldun on September 08, 2017, 08:26:52 AM
They're really screwed because they can't use the obvious title for the sequel:

It Follows


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 08, 2017, 08:46:32 AM
They're really screwed because they can't use the obvious title for the sequel:

It Follows

Pretty sure they're going with IT: Chapter 2.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Cadaverine on September 08, 2017, 02:39:48 PM
Saw it this morning.  I really liked Skarsgård as Pennywise, and the kids were good as well, but it was a bit dull overall. 


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 08, 2017, 06:40:40 PM
Saw it this morning.  I really liked Skarsgård as Pennywise, and the kids were good as well, but it was a bit dull overall. 

This movie was as good an IT as we're ever going to get. I'm not sure what was dull, it was nearly 3 hours and felt like 90 minutes.

If I was going to leverage a complaint, it would be that Mike was basically Token.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Cheddar on September 08, 2017, 06:49:51 PM
Saw it this morning.  I really liked Skarsgård as Pennywise, and the kids were good as well, but it was a bit dull overall. 

This movie was as good an IT as we're ever going to get. I'm not sure what was dull, it was nearly 3 hours and felt like 90 minutes.

If I was going to leverage a complaint, it would be that Mike was basically Token.

So like the book, and turns out most important character.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 08, 2017, 07:02:30 PM
Only Beverly, Bill and Eddie were really fleshed out. After that would be Stan and Ben. Followed by Richie and finally Mike.

Henry had more backstory than some of the Losers Club, which was an interesting choice.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 08, 2017, 07:13:44 PM
Sophia Lillis as Bev was basically the perfect casting.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Cheddar on September 08, 2017, 07:39:33 PM
Only Beverly, Bill and Eddie were really fleshed out. After that would be Stan and Ben. Followed by Richie and finally Mike.

Henry had more backstory than some of the Losers Club, which was an interesting choice.

So, like the book.  Fuuuuuuuck I need to see this.  I may get sick weds and catch it with my daughter in the theater with awesome seats.  Leather.  Reclinable.

Did you see 3d?  If so is it worth it?

Nevermind, went to order tickets and no 3d.  Warmed my heart.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 08, 2017, 07:49:35 PM
There is no 3d I don't think. Also yeah we were in leather recliner seats. Was nice.

Anyway I've never seen a 3d movie. Soooooo.

The trailer for mother! Was one of the most presumptuous fucking things I'd ever seen. It tried to call me an asshole for not already having a ticket.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Cheddar on September 08, 2017, 07:50:55 PM
There is no 3d I don't think. Also yeah we were in leather recliner seats. Was nice.

Anyway I've never seen a 3d movie. Soooooo.

The trailer for mother! Was one of the most presumptuous fucking things I'd ever seen. It tried to call me an asshole for not already having a ticket.

Sold. 


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Velorath on September 08, 2017, 08:30:59 PM
Saw it this morning.  I really liked Skarsgård as Pennywise, and the kids were good as well, but it was a bit dull overall. 
It's a decent movie. The kids are pretty good. Pennywise is ok but it's a bit of a one-note performance. True to spending time in Derry though, it rapidly faded from memory.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 08, 2017, 08:32:54 PM
Saw it this morning.  I really liked Skarsgård as Pennywise, and the kids were good as well, but it was a bit dull overall. 
It's a decent movie. The kids are pretty good. Pennywise is ok but it's a bit of a one-note performance. True to spending time in Derry though, it rapidly faded from memory.
You jaded, son.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Velorath on September 08, 2017, 09:17:46 PM
A bit. I enjoyed the movie a lot when it was just the Losers interacting with each other and I can't downplay the accomplishment of getting that strong of a group of child actors. There were some cool visuals with Pennywise but any kid who sticks his hand into a sewer drain after hearing him talk deserves to get killed. There's zero nuance to the performance and at all times he sounds 100% evil.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 08, 2017, 09:59:14 PM
A bit. I enjoyed the movie a lot when it was just the Losers interacting with each other and I can't downplay the accomplishment of getting that strong of a group of child actors. There were some cool visuals with Pennywise but any kid who sticks his hand into a sewer drain after hearing him talk deserves to get killed. There's zero nuance to the performance and at all times he sounds 100% evil.
When was the last time you read the book?

Children are stupid. IT is literally the embodiment of stupid. A cosmic shithead's middle finger to Derry. He's pretty fucking one-note in the book also. He basically has one mode, the invocation of fear. Kids fear stupid shit.

In this movie, Stanley was afraid of some jewy painting in his dad's office. I shit you not, I was afraid of a painting in my grandma's house when I was little, of a rabbi no less. That painting is now hiding in my closet here.

ANYWAY

Me thinks you may have forgotten the source material. I thought Skarsgård was legitimately better than Curry. Curry's Pennywise may have been more fun, but book Pennywise was very not fun.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Velorath on September 08, 2017, 10:23:43 PM
I'm not judging it in regards to faithfulness to the source material, just the degree to which I enjoyed it. I liked the movie overall but found it a bit forgettable. We get a lot of sequences of IT fucking with the kids, either individually or a few times when they're in a group and it starts to get a bit repetitious especially since the stakes don't really get raised in this part of the story. I might well find that it plays better overall when the second part comes out, although that will require them putting together an equally good cast for the Losers.

Its a solid movie and I largely enjoyed it while I was watching it. Now I'm just trying to work through why it's not really sticking with me.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: SurfD on September 08, 2017, 11:18:46 PM
So, like the book.  Fuuuuuuuck I need to see this.  I may get sick weds and catch it with my daughter in the theater with awesome seats.  Leather.  Reclinable.

Did you see 3d?  If so is it worth it?

Nevermind, went to order tickets and no 3d.  Warmed my heart.
Not available in 3D, but you might be able to catch it in IMAX.   


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 09, 2017, 12:02:53 AM
I'm not judging it in regards to faithfulness to the source material, just the degree to which I enjoyed it. I liked the movie overall but found it a bit forgettable. We get a lot of sequences of IT fucking with the kids, either individually or a few times when they're in a group and it starts to get a bit repetitious especially since the stakes don't really get raised in this part of the story. I might well find that it plays better overall when the second part comes out, although that will require them putting together an equally good cast for the Losers.

Its a solid movie and I largely enjoyed it while I was watching it. Now I'm just trying to work through why it's not really sticking with me.

I dunno man. The casting of Beverly was so good it gave me flashbacks of The Wizard where Jenny Lewis outshined Fred Savage who was a goddamn hollywood sweetheart at the time (Finn being Fred in this scenario). Between her and Bills performance it pretty much skyrocketed into my top five horror flicks, if not movies in general. Also, Eddie was better than expected. Kid has timing. I really couldn't have asked for more based on the source material. Not sure what they couldve done better besides pick a different track for the bathroom cleaning 80s montage.

Also love that the turtle tried to stop the whole movie from happening in the first five minutes.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Velorath on September 09, 2017, 12:25:33 AM
Like I said, the casting was great for the most part and it's a shame that aside from maybe some flashbacks they can't really bring them back for the sequel.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 09, 2017, 12:46:53 PM
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/weekend-box-office-it-movie-scares-up-record-thursday-night-1036714

The top weekend for any Horror movie is currently held by Paranormal Activity 3 (which brought back the original actress). PA3 pulled in $52.6M.

On Friday alone, IT pulled in $51M. It's tracking for a weekend north of $100M.

Biggest Friday ever for an R-Rated Title, beating Deadpool.

Biggest September release night ever.

It's Thursday preview day was the biggest preview gross ever ($15.3M)

Internationally the film pulled $16.1M on Friday. IT is not a piece of pop culture in most of the world, so this is outstanding. Bringing the overseas total to $25.7M.

As such, thus far, this weekend, it has made 76.7M. It is just Friday.

R-Rated horror is back on the menu, boys.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Selby on September 09, 2017, 10:48:45 PM
I liked this. To the people out there complaining about the depth/motivations of It itself... consider that there wasn't much in the book to begin here with. I enjoyed the hell out of it and most movies I can't be bothered to watch on demand much less in the theater on opening weekend.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on September 09, 2017, 11:01:47 PM
This was pretty much the scariest movie, to me, that I have ever seen. The scares were patient and sustained. To call this dull at any point is laughably ridiculous. I felt it was too short. What a badass show.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 10, 2017, 03:58:29 PM
$117M. (Expected $179M globally).

Again, budget of $35M (I think it's production of $30M, advertising of $5M). Anyway.

  • The first horror movie to gross over $100M opening weekend. The others aren't even close. Signs (~$60M), I am Legend ($77M) - and these weren't even in September.
  • Biggest R-Rated record holder (Deadpool, $60M), which was smashed by day 1.
  • The biggest opening weekend EVER in September, which is the true Shit Month for movies (coming out of the summer, back to school, etc).
  • If this weekend is any indicator, it should overtake the highest grossing horror movie ever (The Sixth Sense). If you adjust for inflation, it'll fall between Sixth Sense ($500M) and Exorcist ($885M). If it somehow passes a billion, well, it won't but if it did, whoa. The records Jaws has had forever just gets crushed.
  • It did all of this without Florida.

Normally I don't care about this shit, but I care A LOT when it comes to how shitty my favorite genre has been treated for 20 years.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on September 10, 2017, 04:43:20 PM
^

My one bitch with this show was the floating kids. There was 0 wrap up on that point, I almost wish they hadn't included it.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 10, 2017, 05:01:10 PM
I thought Pennywise's lair was strange, but I gave it a pass. My bigger issue with the ending was that if it didn't say IT: Chapter One after the final scene and you knew NOTHING about the book, you'd assume they killed Pennywise and that all the kids were saved.

Which is uh

not how it goes at all

But also, not a particularly important part of the story (to me at least).


Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on September 11, 2017, 12:23:37 AM
Sure, I just thought the one off line about the kids coming down drew attention to the fact that we never find out if the kids are ok, or did we get adults to go look at this weird shithole, or what the fuck. Yeah, the rest of the movie more than made up for it, but it was a niggling little detail that I couldn't let go of.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 11, 2017, 12:51:49 AM
Director is on record saying he wants to cover more of the mythology of Pennywise and the cosmic horrorness of it all in the next chapter. Since this is gonna make fucking buckets of cash, I expect to get more than one new chapter.

Also, he's said the next movie will be both kids in the 80s and adults in present day. I suspect the end result will be a nearly 7 hour trilogy with a middle section of woven storytelling to bridge the children's story and the adults.

Part wishful thinking, sure, but theyd be absolutely retarded not to milk the SHIT out of this given how little of the source material was actually covered.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on September 11, 2017, 02:39:21 AM
I hope they don't fuck it up and make Pennywise like a crashed alien or some weird shit.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 11, 2017, 08:38:31 AM
I'm not worried about that, they already showed us the deadlights.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Phildo on September 11, 2017, 09:48:05 AM
Schild, are you seriously hoping they Hobbit this?

e: I'm a hater, I know.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 11, 2017, 09:54:07 AM
How would they hobbit this? There's nothing that came before the current story. There just happens to be more than enough content for 3 movies. It's the number that feels right.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Samwise on September 11, 2017, 01:42:45 PM
I hope they don't fuck it up and make Pennywise like a crashed alien or some weird shit.

Isn't that what "It" is in the book?  Some kind of Cthulhu-ish thing?


Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on September 11, 2017, 02:05:04 PM
It's an ancient evil, kind of always been thing. I'm talking some moron thinking he's got this great idea for an origin story that is wrong, stupid, and fucks it all up. Yknow. Hollywood.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 11, 2017, 02:06:00 PM
Muschietti has made it pretty clear he intends to keep it as a cosmic ancient evil. Which is probably smart since Hulu has Castle Rock coming out this year and having the whole universe make sense is likely helpful.

Fucking dark tower tho


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 11, 2017, 02:32:54 PM
Expectations were correct. It ended at $179,150,000 worldwide.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Velorath on September 11, 2017, 03:42:07 PM
It came during a drought of good movies. Hitman's Bodyguard was #1 for the last 3 weeks. I think the last big movie to come out was Dunkirk back in July.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Samwise on September 11, 2017, 03:44:08 PM
Expectations were correct. It ended at $179,150,000 worldwide.

Isn't that something like double what that Ghostbusters flop pulled in for about a quarter of the production budget? 

If so I guess it goes to show there's still plenty of money to be made in mining 80s nostalgia but you need to not be dumb about it.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 11, 2017, 03:49:50 PM
Bad movies are bad.

Good movies are good.

Curry took a good villain and made him a classic. Skaarsgaard just reinvented a classic.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on September 11, 2017, 04:01:03 PM
Yup. That. I still enjoy the old one, cheesy effects and all. Both great shows in their own right.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 12, 2017, 09:28:49 AM
117M was a prediction. It hit $123.1M.

O_O

I'm really glad all this IT art I have isn't going to tank in value. Thanks, Mr. & Mrs. Muschietti.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Wasted on September 13, 2017, 06:58:21 AM
I liked the movie, I think the original movie did a better job of bringing the kids together and bonding more though.  This one sustained the scares more at the expense of some of the more character building moments.  As far as 'It' goes, I think he was fine, the original gave Curry more time to enjoy the taunting where as Skaarsgaard played up the ravenous predator more.  My kids felt he wasn't as scary as Curry, Curry being more 'normalish' makes him scarier.

I didn't like it they they had to kidnap Beverly to get them down there though.  It was a symptom of rushing things a bit much, they would have been better off not having the group have their split than having to patch it back up quickly in that hammy way.

Going to have to reread the book now, its been a long time.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 17, 2017, 12:10:00 AM
IT is apparently replacing most movies at the few IMAX theaters here in Austin (whoa at expanding theater count for the second week). Guess I know what Im doing in a few days.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: HaemishM on September 17, 2017, 12:28:23 AM
I saw this today and it was absolutely as perfect a movie as one could expect. The pacing was incredible - I remember looking at my phone's clock over an hour into it and thinking "holy shit, it's already been an hour?" Some of the character's catchphrases ended up being left out or at least not as prominent as I remember them being in the novel but I think that was actually an improvement. King tends to find a character's one phrase and hammer it over and over again. Pennywise was fantastic, the effects were great, all the kid actors were really good (especially the kid from Stranger Things as Ritchie). The soundtrack was great.

I know the second movie won't be as good because that was the weak part of the book. But it'll still be worth watching.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Hawkbit on September 17, 2017, 12:50:23 AM
We just got back from seeing it, too. It was pretty great. I would have preferred 50% less jump scares; by the end of the movie the tension had passed for me.

I keep thinking of the opening scene with Pennywise and Georgie, that moment when Pennywise's face dropped and it went silent and deadeyes. The camera angles on the face with the eyes, one pointing slightly away, that was great. Utterly weird and creepy.

I'm not 100% sold on their interpretation of the entity's true form, I always thought of it as turtle-like. IIRC, the mini-series portrayed it as a spider-like.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Goldenmean on September 17, 2017, 02:47:43 AM
I keep thinking of the opening scene with Pennywise and Georgie, that moment when Pennywise's face dropped and it went silent and deadeyes. The camera angles on the face with the eyes, one pointing slightly away, that was great. Utterly weird and creepy.

Agreed. Pennywise was way more unsettling in moments like those before he monstered out and started lunging at the camera. Skarsgard did a great job playing up the alien aspect of the character.

Quote
I'm not 100% sold on their interpretation of the entity's true form, I always thought of it as turtle-like. IIRC, the mini-series portrayed it as a spider-like.

It was a spider in the book also. They outright refer to it as "The Spider" at that point, though of course that's still not its true form, because humans can't understand its true Macroverse form, *blah, blah, insert typical eldritch horror boilerplate here*. Its Macroverse nemesis, Maturin is referred to as "The Turtle", which might be what you're thinking of.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Teleku on September 17, 2017, 05:07:41 AM
Also, lets be real here.  The creatures true form was probably the single weakest aspect of the entire book/TV Series.  They can make it what ever the fuck they want and it wont take anything away from the story.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Sir T on September 17, 2017, 01:41:21 PM
The Turtle wasn't really its Nemesis, unless I am missing a lot of subjext. it was just an unconnected entity that largely didn't seem didn't do anything bar spit out galaxies, and which IT had contempt for. There was a hint of some undefined third entity that nudged events along.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 17, 2017, 01:47:29 PM
Maturin is It's nemesis. Iirc they're two sides of the same coin. They are the oil and water of gods.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Sir T on September 17, 2017, 01:48:47 PM
Cool.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 17, 2017, 01:57:50 PM
I mean, in the book Maturin literally instructs the Losers on the ritual of chud which they use to beat it and Derry ends up getting destroyed.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Ironwood on September 18, 2017, 10:01:15 AM
Why swap Mike and Ben and what does that mean for Chapter Two ?

I have tons of other stuff to say, but none of it I can really be bothered with.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Sir T on September 18, 2017, 12:18:11 PM
I mean, in the book Maturin literally instructs the Losers on the ritual of chud which they use to beat it and Derry ends up getting destroyed.

Shit, now I have to reread the book because I don't remember that at all. I thought they got the ritual by reading old Native American legends on how to get rid evil spirits or something. Not saying you are wrong, just cursing my wonky memory.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 18, 2017, 01:36:21 PM
I mean, in the book Maturin literally instructs the Losers on the ritual of chud which they use to beat it and Derry ends up getting destroyed.

Shit, now I have to reread the book because I don't remember that at all. I thought they got the ritual by reading old Native American legends on how to get rid evil spirits or something. Not saying you are wrong, just cursing my wonky memory.

Quote
Bill Denbrough first battled It with the Ritual with advice that was given to him by Maturin. The ritual is a psychic battle in which the two forces duel with their wits. The children believe that the metal silver has supernatural abilities, as seen in numerous monster movies. Because the children believe it, it becomes real and is a chief weapon used in the ritual. Because Beverly Marsh is good with a slingshot, they injure It the first time when Beverly shoots a chunk of silver into Its skull. The group thinks that they killed It, but they can't be sure, so they make a pact to return to Derry should It ever return. It was finally destroyed in the second Ritual of Chüd by the adult Bill Denbrough, Richie Tozier, Beverly Marsh, Eddie Kaspbrak (although he was killed by It) and Ben Hanscom.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 21, 2017, 11:44:48 AM
IT has now beaten the 44 year old record held by The Exorcist (by a big fat $400k). No, not adjusted for inflation. But budgets aren't adjusted for inflation either (it would have cost over $70M in today's bucks).


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Ironwood on September 21, 2017, 01:42:21 PM
OK WUA.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on September 21, 2017, 01:52:29 PM
Beep beep, Eric.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 21, 2017, 03:09:45 PM
hey look, I just want R-Rated horror to be the standard, not the exception.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Soulflame on September 21, 2017, 06:20:55 PM
What is the standard for horror?  PG-13?


Title: Re: IT
Post by: MediumHigh on September 21, 2017, 06:31:46 PM
What is the standard for horror?  PG-13?

More kids more dollars.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 21, 2017, 06:37:00 PM
Bingo. PG-13 is terrible for horror.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on September 21, 2017, 11:51:24 PM
There are some good PG13 horror shows, but it's really hard to do. Hitting the rating means limiting characters and believable reactions to oh shit moments. As well as believable oh shit moments.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Ironwood on September 22, 2017, 09:59:27 AM
Bingo. PG-13 is terrible for horror.

IT was not a good horror film tho.  So there's that.

It was a good film.  It was not a good horror film.

Not sure why you're holding it to a 'standard' there.



Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 22, 2017, 10:04:51 AM
Bingo. PG-13 is terrible for horror.

IT was not a good horror film tho.  So there's that.

It was a good film.  It was not a good horror film.

Not sure why you're holding it to a 'standard' there.

It was R-rated and featured a fucking clown killing kids and kids saying shit and fuck a lot.

That's enough to get me what I want from Hollywood.

Edit: Also, counterpoint: IT was such a good horror film that it transcended horror and just became good film. As in, it broke out of the genre - but to pretend the base of story isn't horror is just silly.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: HaemishM on September 22, 2017, 10:16:36 AM
I actually think the reason it was so good it was that it was a coming of age story with horror as a thin genre veneer, at least the part that the movie portrays. The second part is more of a adult coming to grips with trauma with horror as the manifestation.

So it's kind of both.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Ironwood on September 22, 2017, 11:15:11 AM
I'm not pretending shit.  I understand the base of the film was horror.  It wasn't a good one, imo.  It had jump scares and, well, that's about it.  It wasn't all that scary and every time it tried to be and built up the tension, it immediately ratcheted it right back down with a heartwarming scene or Richie and his jokes.  It never built into anything for me.  Don't misunderstand, I enjoyed it and thought it was a good film.  But I pretty much had the same reaction to Stand By Me, frankly, and I thought Stranger Things did what it tried to do sooooo much better.  I suspect that the adult follow up may be able to learn from that and build on it.

There was ONE scary moment for me that didn't involve jump scares and that was the unnatural silence of Pennywise after his popcorn line.  Genuinely impactful scene that bit ;  the silence, the stillness right after his giggling - that was Pennywise as fucking scary.

Quote
IT was such a good horror film that it transcended horror and just became good film.

Jesus Christ, if anyone who wasn't you wrote that, you'd be all over them for being an unbelievably pretentious schmuck.  But you do you, I guess.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 22, 2017, 11:21:51 AM
Ironwood, what do you consider Silence of the Lambs?


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Sky on September 22, 2017, 11:29:42 AM
Jesus Christ, if anyone who wasn't you wrote that, you'd be all over them for being an unbelievably pretentious schmuck.  
Art degree.  :drillf:


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Velorath on September 23, 2017, 05:20:16 AM
Ironwood, what do you consider Silence of the Lambs?

I don't think he's arguing that it's not a horror movie, he's arguing that the horror aspect of it isn't that good especially compared to the non-horror aspects. Saying it's not a horror movie is a dumb argument. Saying it's not a good horror movie is something I agree with to an extent.

And yeah it's great to see an R-rated horror movie cleaning up at the box office, but look at the competition.  Hollywood ended the Summer movie season a movie early this year and for wide-release movies has given us nothing but duds through September also. Maybe Kingsman will make some money this weekend but it will be despite the reviews. Hopefully Blade Runner is good because that's going to have to carry October almost entirely by itself.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: MediumHigh on September 24, 2017, 10:30:54 AM
After seeing this I have to say, this was a good movie. this was not a good horror movie. Especially that ending. Like who knew a cosmic entity



Title: Re: IT
Post by: HaemishM on September 25, 2017, 02:21:09 PM
Especially that ending. Like who knew a cosmic entity


Well,



Title: Re: IT
Post by: Engels on September 26, 2017, 10:52:33 AM
I agree with Ironwood. IT was a good coming of age movie interrupted repeatedly by hackneyed jumpscare bullshittery.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: MediumHigh on September 26, 2017, 02:08:25 PM
Especially that ending. Like who knew a cosmic entity


Well,


Well I always had a running theory in regards to IT



Title: Re: IT
Post by: Der Helm on October 09, 2017, 04:45:14 PM
Good movie, great even, a few scary scenes (anything balloon related  :why_so_serious: )

But OH MY GOD were those jumpscares annoying. I fucking hate it when the movie is trying to get a reaction with a loud noise. I am not an idiot, I can distinguish between beeing scared and startled.

And it was not even startling, I could count down from 10 for almost all the jump scare scenes. I might have seen too many bad horror movies in the last year.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Ironwood on October 09, 2017, 05:32:54 PM
Ironwood, what do you consider Silence of the Lambs?

Did you really compare the two ?

I mean, really ?

Silence of the Lambs is many things.  And, yes, also a horror movie of a type.  An actual scary one, of course, since it really does build tension all the way through and has not one but two 'normal everyday people' who are genuinely scary as fuck.  It never really needs to go the 'jump scare' route, though it does in places, depending on what scares you.  I'm thinking heads in jars at this point.  Also, you'll note that wee silence of Pennywise (which I posited as genuinely chilling) was actually pretty much like the silences of Lecter and Buffalo Bill, in that you have a sort of dysfunctional/human moment where you can instantly see 'Nope, Chaps, this is Very Wrong, Get Out.'

But, really, this is not a valid comparison.  I'd be interested in watching you die on this hill, but cmon.  Really ?  You wanna tell me that SotL 'was such a good horror movie it transcended horror' too ?  Because that line is still mince.

I mean, I suppose the scene of Starling getting down to her pants and then jumping joyfully into that pool with the other FBI cadets DID somewhat spoil the constantly elevating tension, but.  Oh Wait.  That wasn't SotL. 

 :uhrr:


I get it.  You like IT more than me.  That's fine.



Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on October 09, 2017, 05:37:20 PM
Dude, I like you quite a bit, and I like IT more than you. No offense, you're just no match. :D


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on December 11, 2017, 09:27:33 PM
this movie got fucking SNUBBED by the golden globes

having just watched Get Out, there's no world where Daniel deserves the nod over Skarsgaard for best actor

no no no

hell, the children were as good as daniel

and poor sophia lillis, not even a nod


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Velorath on December 12, 2017, 12:50:24 AM
this movie got fucking SNUBBED by the golden globes

having just watched Get Out, there's no world where Daniel deserves the nod over Skarsgaard for best actor

no no no

hell, the children were as good as daniel

and poor sophia lillis, not even a nod

I can't say that I've seen all their work from 2017 but I doubt Bill would even deserve a Golden Globe nomination for Best Acting from a Skarsgard for the year.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on December 12, 2017, 01:55:59 AM
I'm shocked that a horror movie didn't get anything.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Merusk on December 12, 2017, 07:47:13 AM
Horror was as likely to get a nod as comedy or action movie for the roles you're talking about. It can happen but the "serious" head-up-your-ass movies are what the academies want to award. "Being an Adult," is the mindset and "adults only like serious things."


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on December 12, 2017, 08:13:34 AM
this movie got fucking SNUBBED by the golden globes

having just watched Get Out, there's no world where Daniel deserves the nod over Skarsgaard for best actor

no no no

hell, the children were as good as daniel

and poor sophia lillis, not even a nod

I can't say that I've seen all their work from 2017 but I doubt Bill would even deserve a Golden Globe nomination for Best Acting from a Skarsgard for the year.
Did another Skarsgaard take on a beloved role from over two decades ago and defy all expectations?

But yes, that is a family of p good actors.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: WayAbvPar on December 16, 2017, 04:31:20 PM
When is this coming to digital release? I never did get around to seeing it, but still want to quite badly.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on December 16, 2017, 04:32:17 PM
19th.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: WayAbvPar on December 16, 2017, 04:40:19 PM
Oh nice!


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on December 18, 2017, 04:26:49 PM
Blu-ray was released in Australia. The aspect ratio is legit af.

(https://i.imgur.com/kNY6rog.png)


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Cadaverine on May 09, 2019, 01:40:46 PM
The trailer for part 2 dropped today.  It just sucks that I'll have to wait until Sept. to see it.

https://youtu.be/zqUopiAYdRg (https://youtu.be/zqUopiAYdRg)


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Ironwood on May 09, 2019, 04:49:11 PM
Yeah.  That's the stuff.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Cyrrex on June 03, 2019, 04:48:43 AM
I finally saw this.  PW is creepy as fuck, and while I would agree it isn't non-stop scary "horror" based on however we define it, but who cares.  It has enough elements of horror to satisfy that bit, while also being a damn good movie, and on balance I'd think that'd matter most.  It was Stranger Things, but only not exactly, and with a creepy fucking clown.

Not going to watch the trailer for the new one if I can avoid it.  Not sure I will like the adults version of this as much, but definitely have to see it.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: HaemishM on June 03, 2019, 09:17:28 AM
The adult versions in the books weren't as interesting as the kids either, so if they can just deliver on creepy spider ending, I'll be happy.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on June 03, 2019, 09:27:28 AM
i don't want the spider anywhere near it but it's basically been confirmed to be in the movie so

that's a shame


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Cyrrex on June 03, 2019, 10:46:15 AM
Wasn’t the spider just what their minds came up with to make sense of an utterly alien creature?  So not a literal spider?  They can, I don’t know, give it 10 legs.  And teeth, lots of goddamn teeth.

The adults portions in the book were less interesting, but still pretty good.  That said, they interwove both time periods, and that is what made it work.  I doubt the movie will be as satisfying.  It will lose the magical ‘teens in the 80s’ vibe that we all fucking eat up.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Ironwood on June 03, 2019, 12:42:46 PM
The Previous TV Movie soured EVERYONE on the spider, but it can work if done right, I'm sure.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Cyrrex on June 03, 2019, 12:59:59 PM
Never saw that one, nor see much reason to at this point, so I guess I have no pre-conception about the spider thing.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on June 03, 2019, 01:45:09 PM
The old one is absolutely worth it for Tim Curry's performance alone.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Ironwood on June 03, 2019, 02:25:44 PM
But that's kinda all.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Hawkbit on June 03, 2019, 02:41:16 PM
I thought it was actually a turtle from the book, or maybe that was how it was represented in the dark tower series?


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Ironwood on June 03, 2019, 02:53:43 PM
Turtle is the good guy, spider is the bad guy.

It's kinda full of cocaine, to be honest


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Cyrrex on June 04, 2019, 12:03:55 AM
In King's case, wonderfully full of cocaine. If I remember correctly, in the book sweet, young little Beverly does her part to defeat the monster by, you know, having sex with all the boys.  Probably for the best the didn't try to bring that over to the big screen R rating or no  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on June 04, 2019, 12:42:23 AM
you're not quite remembering correctly


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Cyrrex on June 04, 2019, 12:55:53 AM
Am I?  I coulda swore it was something like that.

Edit:  My quick search backs it up. 


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Goldenmean on June 04, 2019, 02:41:56 AM
Edit:  My quick search backs it up. 

Still not quite right. It's actually even stupider. They've already fought the monster, but they're lost in the sewers and starting to panic, so the ensuing orgy is to calm them all down.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Cyrrex on June 04, 2019, 02:45:12 AM
Ahaha...sure, okay.  Crazypants in any case.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on September 05, 2019, 06:05:13 PM
Goin tomorrow night. Pretty psyched.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: HaemishM on September 05, 2019, 10:40:27 PM
Got my ticket for Saturday morning.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Cyrrex on September 06, 2019, 12:08:49 AM
I would never want to see this in a theater.  Other people would see me squirm and squeal like a bitch.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Korachia on September 06, 2019, 12:58:43 AM
Tickets for Saturday - going there with the girlfriend and her sister. Expecting them to squeal alot. It will be fun!


Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on September 08, 2019, 11:57:22 PM
I loved it. There are several things that the people here will nitpick until I wonder why they watch movies in the first place, but it was damn entertaining, and three hours flew by.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Korachia on September 09, 2019, 11:47:45 AM
I was... not as entertained as I expected I would be. Somehing about the cast was off, and it seemed more funny than scary in many moments.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: HaemishM on September 09, 2019, 01:20:39 PM
I loved it as well. It was kind of eerie how much like their kid counterparts some of the casting seemed - Eddie in particular. I can see people complaining about Pennywise's final form but it was fine. The 13-year old kid next to me practically jumped out of his skin at some of the jump scares. It wasn't scary to me but they maintained some of the creepy aspects well.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 10, 2019, 04:44:06 PM
I was... not as entertained as I expected I would be. Somehing about the cast was off, and it seemed more funny than scary in many moments.

Yea. The actor playing Ben. He was trash.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Sir T on September 11, 2019, 12:06:49 AM
Edit:  My quick search backs it up.  

Still not quite right. It's actually even stupider. They've already fought the monster, but they're lost in the sewers and starting to panic, so the ensuing orgy is to calm them all down.

I was in my teens with stupid hormones out my ass reading that part, and even then I felt like throwing the book across the room because of how stupid that was. But a lot of King stuff falls apart once the monster is dead, but for some reason he kept typing and typing after the Monster was gone in this book.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Ironwood on September 11, 2019, 05:37:32 AM
Cocaine.

A Fuckload of Cocaine.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Cyrrex on September 11, 2019, 11:28:04 AM
Fuckloads of cocaine or no, and strange as that shit was (along with lots of his shit).....it was still great writing on the whole.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Mandella on September 11, 2019, 11:59:18 AM
Fuckloads of cocaine or no, and strange as that shit was (along with lots of his shit).....it was still great writing on the whole.

Yeah, IT was one of the only books I've read in my adult life where I had to honestly put it aside for a while because it was too scary and I didn't want to read it alone in the house.

As for the movies, I think I've probably already said this in this thread, but I really didn't like the first part of the remake. Skarsgaard's Pennywise was super frightening, true, but he was one note only. Curry actually made it believable that the kid might approach the drain in the first mini-series, while with Skarsgaard it just knocked my suspension of disbelief right out the window. And honestly, I thought the first mini-series did pretty well overall, except of course for the terrible spider at the ending.

And the kids in IT the movie part one were just horrible parodies of pre-teens. I really wish the Duffer brothers had gotten the job, at least for their scenes.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Teleku on September 15, 2019, 08:51:48 PM
Funny, I feel the total opposite on the kids.  I fucking hate the kids and their interactions in Stranger Things, and have pretty much not been able to make it past the first season (and barely past the first) because of them.  Meanwhile, I thought the kids in this were mostly great and believable.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 16, 2019, 06:54:44 AM
I don't know what that opinion was about. The kids in the first one were great.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Cyrrex on September 16, 2019, 11:51:20 AM
Yeah they were.  They were basically the condensed movie version of the ST kids.  The entire first movie had much of the same 80s vibes that makes ST so popular.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 16, 2019, 12:43:09 PM
They were flat out better in IT


Title: Re: IT
Post by: MediumHigh on September 16, 2019, 01:08:01 PM
My problem with this version of IT is that it comes from the JJ Abrams school of movie making. High production values, competently directly, looks and sounds ok. Their good movies by every technical benchmark but they don't invoke anything. I never come away from a JJ Abrams movie feeling like I saw something special. Which is why Abrams is consistently hired to make remakes, he can "modernize" a franchise and make it accessible to a new audience. But in doing so you often lose what made the original franchise memorable.

This new IT hits all the right technical beats but isn't too interested in being memorable.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: schild on September 16, 2019, 01:40:57 PM
My problem with this version of IT is that it comes from the JJ Abrams school of movie making. High production values, competently directly, looks and sounds ok. Their good movies by every technical benchmark but they don't invoke anything. I never come away from a JJ Abrams movie feeling like I saw something special. Which is why Abrams is consistently hired to make remakes, he can "modernize" a franchise and make it accessible to a new audience. But in doing so you often lose what made the original franchise memorable.

This new IT hits all the right technical beats but isn't too interested in being memorable.

what the fuck are you talking about

they literally could not have hired someone better from the pool of living cinematographers than they did with Chung-hoon Chung

Nothing about IT came across as a JJ Abrams thing, but even then, if you're not gonna call Cloverfield - regardless of whether you liked it or not - viscerally memorable I don't know what to tell you.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: HaemishM on September 16, 2019, 01:41:29 PM
This new IT hits all the right technical beats but isn't too interested in being memorable.

I disagree with what you said.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: TheWalrus on September 16, 2019, 02:03:43 PM
HA! Not memorable. Holy shit.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Soulflame on September 16, 2019, 03:06:07 PM
This new IT hits all the right technical beats but isn't too interested in being memorable.

I disagree with what you said.
I see what you did there.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Wasted on October 02, 2019, 01:18:28 AM
Part 2 is a solid Meh from me.  There was a some good elements combined with a lack of subtlety that was on the nose in a few spots.


Title: Re: IT
Post by: Selby on October 02, 2019, 06:36:29 AM
Saw this last night. I enjoyed the humor and wisecracks more than I thought I would. Just enough to break the tension without being distracting (and it was built on their interactions as kids). I liked it, doesn’t sound like most people did though. Much better than the second part of the TV movie...