It 4K UHD (2017)

[Viking61]

The regular blu-ray is up for pre-order on Amazon. Isn't it normal for new releases that the BD and the UHD are available for pre-order at the same time? Can it be that the UHD will not be released in the US yet?

Link to to the regular blu-ray.
https://www.amazon.com/Blu-ray-DVD-Digital-Combo-Pack/dp/B074ZMJZ6P/

[Chaotic]

Yeah, usually blu and UHD pre-orders go up at the same time. Even a pre-order for The House was put up at the same time as the blu but that of course was cancelled.

[Braktastic]

For some reason studios have it in their heads that horror films don't sell on Ultra Blu-ray. I hope that this film gets a 4K release though, at the moment i have pre-ordered this through Amazon UK.

[Chaotic]

I mm guessing it's up to new line if this gets a 4k release. None of their movies have gotten a 4k release. Conjuring 2, Collateral Beatuy, The House were cancelled.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

I mm guessing it's up to new line if this gets a 4k release. None of their movies have gotten a 4k release. Conjuring 2, Collateral Beatuy, The House were cancelled.

The studio brass still think horror is a niche genre even if they're doing very well at the box office right now.

[azmodeous]

Horror fans seem to be the most loyal to physical media, you'd think the studios would be jumping on them to get this format further off the ground.

[legends of beyond]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

I mm guessing it's up to new line if this gets a 4k release. None of their movies have gotten a 4k release. Conjuring 2, Collateral Beatuy, The House were cancelled.

Central Intelligence was a New Line title.

[Chaotic]

Yep, no rhyme or reason what gets a 4k release.

[brainofj72]

This is gonna have a $100+ million opening weekend. It will get a 4K.

[pottyaboutpotter1]

This looks set to be the second biggest non-sequel/prequel/remake/reboot/spin-off of the year (this film isn't a remake as it's based on the book not the TV Miniseries). And that's only if you don't count Wonder Woman as a prequel/spin-off of Batman v Superman. It's on track for a $100 million + Opening Weekend in the US alone (not counting WW takings). Not just that, but it's the film adaptation of one of the most popular Stephen King novels and is on track to be WB's biggest non-DC film of the year and will certainly be their most profitable film of the year with a budget of only $35 million.

This is definitely getting a UHD release in the states. WB just haven't announced it yet, but they will. The fact one is confirmed for the UK and other countries should indicate that.

[Chaotic]

Plenty of movies have 4k releases in other countries but not in the states.

[imsounoriginal]

This will 100% get a UHD in the US.

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

Plenty of movies have 4k releases in other countries but not in the states.

Usually because of distribution. Arrival didn't get a UHD in the UK because a different company distributed it in the UK. WB has handled distribution in almost all territories for this. With a UHD confirmed for the UK, there will be one for the US as WB distributed the movie in both countries.

Plus the idea that the film adaptation of one of Stephen King's most popular novels will not receive a 4K UHD release is an impossibility. This isn't just a horror film, it's a movie event and will be one of the most successful films of the year. WB would have to be insane to release this in 4K in other countries but not the US.

[Mierzwiak]

Come on guys, even The Dark Flop is getting UHD release (I know it's Sony, but still), so of course IT being so successfull will get one too.

I saw it (get it?) today, great movie. Perfect mix of drama, horror, grotesque and humour.

[Pieter V]

WEEKEND ESTIMATES
1. It $117,150,00
2. Home Again $9,028,222
3. The Hitman's Bodyguard $4,850,000


Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $117,150,000 65.4%
+ Foreign: $62,000,000 34.6%
= Worldwide: $179,150,000

Just amazing.

[UpsetSmiley]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

This looks set to be the second biggest non-sequel/prequel/remake/reboot/spin-off of the year (this film isn't a remake as it's based on the book not the TV Miniseries). And that's only if you don't count Wonder Woman as a prequel/spin-off of Batman v Superman. It's on track for a $100 million + Opening Weekend in the US alone (not counting WW takings). Not just that, but it's the film adaptation of one of the most popular Stephen King novels and is on track to be WB's biggest non-DC film of the year and will certainly be their most profitable film of the year with a budget of only $35 million.

This is definitely getting a UHD release in the states. WB just haven't announced it yet, but they will. The fact one is confirmed for the UK and other countries should indicate that.

I doubt the screenwriters were too absorbed in the book. The story or appeal is quite straight forward, it's a film about a killer clown and making him scary enough is the most important thing, everything else is secondary. It's a remake as far as I'm concerned although maybe not by technical standards. I always wonder if scriptwriters ever study the source material, maybe the more fan-driven stuff with lore like LOTR and Harry Potter but Curious George and Jason Voorhees? Apart from character names/places, I think the material pretty much presents itself.

That being said, got mine on pre-order and looking forward to watching the film tomorrow. I hope there's some sort of nod to Tim Curry, because let's be honest without his great performance Pennywise wouldn't be quite as infamous.

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by UpsetSmiley

I doubt the scriptwriters were too absorbed in the book. The story or appeal is quite straight forward, it's a film about a killer clown and making him scary enough is the most important thing, everything else is secondary. It's a remake as far as I'm concerned although maybe not by technical standards. I always wonder if scriptwriters ever study the source material, maybe the more fan-driven stuff with lore like LOTR and Harry Potter but Curious George and Jason Voorhees? Apart from character names/places, I think the material pretty much presents itself.

That being said, got mine on pre-order and looking forward to watching the film tomorrow. I hope there's some sort of nod to Tim Curry, because let's be honest without his great performance Pennywise wouldn't be quite as infamous.

The amount of references to the novel in the film proves that the writers and directors were absorbed in it. From the subtle (a LEGO Turtle) to the big (subplots and scenes that didn't make it into the film get references), it's clear the writers of this film really studied then novel. They got the spirit of the novel just right. It's not a scary film about a killer clown. It's so much more than that and there's so much more to the story than that. It's a coming of age story, a story about childhood innocence, a story about how adulthood isn't as magic as childhood, how children are more prepared for some things than adults, a story about how things are passed down through generations etc. I may be going on a bit, by to degrade the novel to just being a "scary killer clown story" is a huge disservice to it and to the film. This was one of the better adaptations I've seen because they really captured the spirit of the novel and King's writing.

[UpsetSmiley]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

The amount of references to the novel in the film proves that the writers and directors were absorbed in it. From the subtle (a LEGO Turtle) to the big (subplots and scenes that didn't make it into the film get references), it's clear the writers of this film really studied then novel. They got the spirit of the novel just right. It's not a scary film about a killer clown. It's so much more than that and there's so much more to the story than that. It's a coming of age story, a story about childhood innocence, a story about how adulthood isn't as magic as childhood, how children are more prepared for some things than adults, a story about how things are passed down through generations etc. I may be going on a bit, by to degrade the novel to just being a "scary killer clown story" is a huge disservice to it and to the film. This was one of the better adaptations I've seen because they really captured the spirit of the novel and King's writing.

Well put, I'm yet to watch the film so I shouldn't run my mouth just yet.

To me the televised series has always been Stand By Me with the occasional scary clown appearance. Probably not the way King intended. It probably wasn't executed as well, a hard feat to pull off it being a 3-hour TV serial and all. But I'm not trying to undermine the book in anyway shape or form, it (the TV serial) just didn't convey the innocence of a child's mind like it was probably supposed to. But I'm glad you as well as critics have good things to say about this one.

If I may ask, which screen rendition do you prefer best the 1990 series or 2017 film?

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by UpsetSmiley

Well put, I'm yet to watch the film so I shouldn't run my mouth just yet.

To me the televised series has always been Stand By Me with the occasional scary clown appearance. Probably not the way King intended. It probably wasn't executed as well, a hard feat to pull off it being a 3-hour TV serial and all. But I'm not trying to undermine the book in anyway shape or form, it (the TV serial) just didn't convey the innocence of a child's mind like it was probably supposed to. But I'm glad you as well as critics have good things to say about this one.

If I may ask, which screen rendition do you prefer best the 1990 series or 2017 film?

The 2017 film by far. The 1990 series was a mess of a production only saved by a few memorable scenes and Tim Curry's wonderful performance. The 2017 film is a lot stronger in terms of writing and character work and is a lot closer to the spirit of King's novel. Pennywise in the film is a lot closer to the unsettling one seen in the novel. The film benefits from it's longer run time (the film devotes 2 hours 15 mins to the child portion of the novel rather than the hour and a half the series did) and is a lot better paced.

In terms of portrayal I slightly prefer Skarsgard's Pennywise over Curry's as Skarsgard feels a lot closer to the Pennywise I imagined when reading the novel.

The film is also a lot stronger in terms of character work when it comes to the kids and the kids are played by much better actors.

In short, the film is not just a better production (the miniseries really doesn't hold up outside of Curry's performance) but it's a lot closer to the spirit of the original book.

[flyry]

I thought the film had a very soft look at times. Maybe I've been watching too many catalog titles shot on film on UHD recently though.