It 4K UHD (2017)

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by 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.

There was the occasional soft shot here and there.

[BluRayHiDef]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

FYI - 2K DCP & 2K Dolby Cinema

So few UHD releases with 4K masters. Sad.

[bluescholar]

I'm curious if the home release will have an extended version.

I have not seen this movie yet, (though I've read the book 3 times in my life and am about halfway through a 4th) so I can't speak of the editing and whether or not the pacing may suffer from added material (as often it can) but they're so much good stuff in there and I can't imagine there wasn't a lot on the cutting room floor for this one and potentially it's sequel. Again, I haven't seen the film, but I'm automatically hoping for an extended edition nonetheless.

As side thought: I remember reading sometime ago that the director (once both parts had been released) was open to the idea of making a cut of the film that was more like the book. (Going back and forth in time).

[nugget2016]

i watched IT on saturday, and for the first time just finished watching the 1990 miniseries. i think both the pennywise portrayal and the 2017 movie version are better. the tim curry pennywise never "felt" scary, slightly due to the look of pennywise, and how he acted it, the performance was still good. but the 2017 portrayal felt scary, even the first shot with him and georgie made me think oh my god..and was genuinely scary in a sense. so i vastly prefer the movie version in every way, also the adult part of the series..yeah that was abismal

[flyry]

Originally Posted by bluescholar

I'm curious if the home release will have an extended version.

2 hours and 15 min is long enough for a horror movie IMO

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

So few UHD releases with 4K masters. Sad.

[EbonDragon]

Originally Posted by flyry

2 hours and 15 min is long enough for a horror movie IMO

IT is more of a horror epic, 2:15 is good but I think 2:30 would have been a more suitable length to give a bit more breathing room on certain scenes.

[agoofykindasuperman]

Originally Posted by EbonDragon

IT is more of a horror epic, 2:15 is good but I think 2:30 would have been a more suitable length to give a bit more breathing room on certain scenes.

I agree. There are a lot of characters they didn't get to spend enough time with. Would like to have seen them flesh out more bonding. They barely even used Eddie's inhaler!

[UpsetSmiley]

Highly enjoyed the film, really does the source material justice. The final 30 minutes dragged a bit we thought, but overall one of the best horror films in years. A really hearty film. They really don't make 'em like they used to, but this gives me hope horror films are on the up. Look forward to

[Show spoiler]Chapter 2

.

[grodd]

Everyone who worked on this movie should be proud. Its sad some people are avoiding this because of its remake status. The production value is off the charts. I have a couple minor nit-picks, but overall a 9 out of 10.

Any movie that can still get the hairs on the back of my neck to stand-up is worth the price.

The 1990's version had a few good scenes by Tim Curry but had some problems through-out especially with part two. Little of the TV series still holds up. I enjoyed the NoES reference especially since they tend to borrow a bit from each other.

[TheSweetieMan]

With $123-million at the box office, I'd say it's safe to assume not many people avoided seeing this movie. ;-)

[Chaotic]

I avoided it due to the crowds. Will try to see it tomorrow.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by EbonDragon

IT is more of a horror epic, 2:15 is good but I think 2:30 would have been a more suitable length to give a bit more breathing room on certain scenes.

If anything it almost felt too long and too relentless.

Though I would have been fine with a 30 min intermission and chapter two right after, so maybe I see your point?

[Snicket]

I saw it in a Dolby theater. It looked really good. The sound was amazing as well.

I'm on vacation on the other side of the country and am really glad I picked a place with a Dolby cinema close by. I wish I had one closer.

[puddy77]

Haven't seen this yet. Hoping to this weekend in Dolby. But here are a few words on it from the colorist, Stephen Nakamura: http://postperspective.com/colorist-...stephen-kings/

Can you talk about the Dolby Cinema pass? People generally talk about how bright you can get something with HDR, but I understand you were more interested in how dark the image can look.
Right. When you’re working in HDR, like Dolby lets you do, you have a lot more contrast to work with than you do in the normal digital cinema version. I worked on some of the earliest movies to do a Dolby Cinema version, and when I was working with Brad Bird and Claudio Miranda on Tomorrowland, we experimented with how much brighter we could make portions of the frame than what would be possible with normal digital cinema projection, without making the image into something that had a completely different feel from the P3 version. But when you’re in that space, you can also make things appear much much darker too. So the overall level in the theater can get really dark but because of that contrast you can actually see more detail on a person’s face, or a killer clown’s face, even when the overall level is so low. It’s more like you’re really in that dark space.

It doesn’t make it a whole different movie or anything, but it’s a good example of where Dolby can add something to the experience. I’d tell people to see it in Dolby Cinema if they could.

[TheSweetieMan]

Of all the films I've seen in Dolby Cinema so far ('Alien: Covenant', 'Baby Driver, 'War for the Planet of the Apes', and 'IT')--this film ranks second only behind 'Alien: Covenant' for the Dolby Vision HDR part of the format.

I was actually quite surprised at how good the colors looked. Georgie's yellow jacket, in particular, had a nice, stark contrast from the gloomy rain.

And, for being a horror film with a lot of dimly lit locations, you could still pick up a ton of detail in the shadows.

The Dolby Atmos experience, man... probably right there with 'Baby Driver', which is saying something.

If you have a Dolby Cinema within reasonable driving distance, that's the format to definitely see this film in.

If Warner finally commits to Dolby Vision UHD released, I'd love for this to be on of their first titles.

[flyry]

I see the regular bluray is available for pre-order but a US 4K one is not yet.

Have there been similar situations where a US 4k was released same day as the regular but it went up for pre-order later?

[ronboster]

Originally Posted by 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.

You read my mind. I just saw it at alamo drafthouse here in KC. The opening scenes especially was both soft and blacks were murky. I was really disappointed in the image quality. I am hoping it was the theater. I almost went to the AMC's Dolby Digital theater for the PQ and sound.....but alamo has a no talk, no text policy (which they enforce)

[brainofj72]

I thought this looked great in Dolby Cinema. I actually remember thinking how sharp and detailed it often looked.

[ronboster]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

I thought this looked great in Dolby Cinema. I actually remember thinking how sharp and detailed it often looked.

Glad to hear it. I'm really looking forward to the home viewing experience. I think their is potential for great sound (at home)