It (2017)

[Creed]

Worldwide, IT is near $500 million with $478 million.

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by creed123

Worldwide, IT is near $500 million with $478 million.

Wow, and it has dethroned Exorcist in terms of worldwide gross. I thought that was going to happen later this week but it already happened.

[Chaotic]

Still has a long ways to go to beat The Exorcist's $917M adjusted domestic grosss.

[Underworld54]

Gitesh Pandya‏ @GiteshPandya 3h3 hours ago
More
Robust $38.3M intl wknd for #ITMovie boosting intl total to $211.7M & global haul to $478M. Will smash half-billion by FRI heading to $650M+

[Dorklord]

I'm not a huge fan of horror films but based on the hype and my enjoyment of some Stephen King stories I thought I'd give 'IT' a chance using my moviepass card... and what do you know... I actually enjoyed 'IT'. 4/5 stars for me. Well made, genuinely frightening at times and the kids cracked me up.

[Himmel]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

Still has a long ways to go to beat The Exorcist's $917M adjusted domestic grosss.

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Goddamn it, The Amazing Atheiest is still a thing?

I didn't even know who he was till that post. So i'm guessing he's a real wad?

[charlieray1]

I'm really surprised by all the tremendous success and praise this is getting. I liked it, but over-all felt let down. I give it 2.5 stars, maybe 3. I LOVED the opening with Georgie, where Pennywise is sinister and evil as he talks to the boy and lures him in, and there were many other good touches, but after the opening scene Pennywise is reduced to one jump-scare after another. He does little but leap up with loud scare chords blaring. He becomes more of a special effect than a character.

The production quality was excellent, the cast and acting were very good and I liked the ending, but I felt like many individual scenes and the overall story were really sold short in exchange for non-stop shock cuts ... which are more annoying than shocking after too many.

I DID like it, but I felt like it was a potentially great horror movie that ended up as a bit better than average after being dumbed down with typical teen horror techniques.

I know the old series looks cheaper, has moments of sticky acting and a weak climax, but I do feel that it told the story better. And it had scenes (like Bev and the old woman in her house, or all the balloons in the library) that were genuinely eerie - a feeling which lasts after the movie is over, where jump scares do not. (And that's not childhood nostalgia talking -- I was 30 when it came out, first saw it years later.)

Glad everone is loving it -- not trying to be a troll. Just surprised by this much love for It.

[Batman90]

Originally Posted by charlieray1

I'm really surprised by all the tremendous success and praise this is getting. I liked it, but over-all felt let down. I give it 2.5 stars, maybe 3. I LOVED the opening with Georgie, where Pennywise is sinister and evil as he talks to the boy and lures him in, and there were many other good touches, but after the opening scene Pennywise is reduced to one jump-scare after another. He does little but leap up with loud scare chords blaring. He becomes more of a specila effect than a character.

The production quality was excellent, the cast and acting were very good and I liked the ending, but I felt like many individual scenes and the overall story were really sold short in exchange for non-stop shock cuts ... which are more annoying than shocking after too many.

I DID like it, but I felt like it was a potentially great horror movie that ended up as a bit better than average after being dumbed down with typical teen horror techniques.

I know the old series looks cheaper, has some sticky acting and a weak climax, but I do feel that it told the story better. And it had scenes like Bev and the old woman in her house, or all the balloons in the library, that were genuinely eerie - a feeling which lasts after the movie is over, where jump scares do not. (And that's not childhood nostalgia talking -- I was 30 when it came out, first saw it years later.)

Glad everone is loving it -- not trying to be a troll. Just surprised by this much love for It.

The first movie is more about the losers club. Chapter 2 will go more into IT.

[sandman slim]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

Still has a long ways to go to beat The Exorcist's $917M adjusted domestic grosss.

I get really tired of seeing this argument about every single hit movie. Exorcist didn't have twenty other movies playing alongside it in a multiplex, or 500 channels of home entertainment keeping people at home, or ticket prices that run as high as $22 making people think "eh, I'll wait for the Blu-ray", or Redbox, or illegal downloads...

You can't just adjust the dollar total for inflation & think it's a valid comparison.

IT is a hit.

[Chaotic]

Jeez, I was just kidding.

[sandman slim]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

Jeez, I was just kidding.

Yeah, I saw the and even though I'm old, I am fluent in emoji.

Didn't mean to roast you Just reeeeeealy tired of the whole "adjusted gross" argument. Different times, y'know?

[SarahS]

Originally Posted by sandman slim

I get really tired of seeing this argument about every single hit movie. Exorcist didn't have twenty other movies playing alongside it in a multiplex, or 500 channels of home entertainment keeping people at home, or ticket prices that run as high as $22 making people think "eh, I'll wait for the Blu-ray", or Redbox, or illegal downloads...

You can't just adjust the dollar total for inflation & think it's a valid comparison.

IT is a hit.

Dude you are wrong as wrong can be. You are more wrong than Stevie Wonder in a Dart throwing contest. Yes adjusted does count. What it proved is that more people went to the theater to see The Exorcist. Who gives a damn about money it’s asses in seats!

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by sandman slim

I get really tired of seeing this argument about every single hit movie. Exorcist didn't have twenty other movies playing alongside it in a multiplex, or 500 channels of home entertainment keeping people at home, or ticket prices that run as high as $22 making people think "eh, I'll wait for the Blu-ray", or Redbox, or illegal downloads...

You can't just adjust the dollar total for inflation & think it's a valid comparison.

IT is a hit.

If we're factoring in everything you have to include the increase in US Population and total number of movie theaters playing the film as well.

[Britbuffguy]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

Still has a long ways to go to beat The Exorcist's $917M adjusted domestic grosss.

Adjusted means jack and squat these days. With home video, online, etc.....there's far more ways to see a movie then back in the 70s.

[SarahS]

Originally Posted by Britbuffguy

Adjusted means jack and squat these days. With home video, online, etc.....there's far more ways to see a movie then back in the 70s.

OMG Jeebus....yeah it does mean jack squat because 3x less theaters at 1.25 theater ticket in 1973/74 means more asses in the seats than IT! People need to stop with the crazy.

[Britbuffguy]

Originally Posted by SarahS

OMG Jeebus....yeah it does mean jack squat because 3x less theaters at 1.25 theater ticket in 1973/74 means more asses in the seats than IT! People need to stop with the crazy.

Like the crazy of someone trolling a movie page for three weeks straight now?

[SarahS]

Originally Posted by Britbuffguy

Like the crazy of someone trolling a movie page for three weeks straight now?

Do you even know what a troll is? I was replying to your comment! Just because you don't agree or like what I say that is not trolling.

[Gamma_Winstead]

Originally Posted by SarahS

OMG Jeebus....yeah it does mean jack squat because 3x less theaters at 1.25 theater ticket in 1973/74 means more asses in the seats than IT! People need to stop with the crazy.

I think you're misunderstanding. He's getting that yes, the money IT makes is nice, but the comparisons aren't accurate. In the 70's people couldn't buy a film 3 months after release. They couldn't go to walgreen and rent it for a dollar. They couldn't stream it to their televisions without getting off their ass.

Films make more money, but they'll NEVER come close to the attendance of the old days. Movies were events. Theatrical showings meant something. Now they're just a three month step before Joe Brown can stay at home in his underwear and stream it.

Money should be celebrated, but it'll never tell the whole story as to what's really popular. There really isn't a similar way to judge it now. I wish there was, but there just isn't.

[Zero_Cool]

Originally Posted by Gamma_Winstead

I think you're misunderstanding. He's getting that yes, the money IT makes is nice, but the comparisons aren't accurate. In the 70's people couldn't buy a film 3 months after release. They couldn't go to walgreen and rent it for a dollar. They couldn't stream it to their televisions without getting off their ass.

Films make more money, but they'll NEVER come close to the attendance of the old days. Movies were events. Theatrical showings meant something. Now they're just a three month step before Joe Brown can stay at home in his underwear and stream it.

Money should be celebrated, but it'll never tell the whole story as to what's really popular. There really isn't a similar way to judge it now. I wish there was, but there just isn't.

I don't miss waiting a full year to get a copy of a the next big movie on VHS.