It | Sept. 8, 2017 | Warner Brothers | Andy Muschietti directing. Trailer on Page 12 NO SPOILER DISCUSSION. Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes

[Cochofles]

9 minutes ago, Blaze Heatnix said:

Jesus Christ, what a great, fucking great movie!!!!! Amazing chemistry between the actors. Pennywise was intense and really scary for most of the scenes.

 

By the way, why is the movie so short? Time really flied fast and I thought it was a freaking 90 min flick!!! It's probably one of the best movies I've seen this year, that's for sure!

 

You want answers?

There is your answer! 

 

 

Glad you enjoyed! I love that feeling of loving a film you just watched!!  

[Cookson]

WB really killed it this year. Lots of diverse films this films with great results.

 

IT only cost 35m to make... 

[Blaze Heatnix]

22 minutes ago, AJG said:

 

May I ask just how gruesome is the movie? Im really not into horror and I really want to see this I just wanna know what I should be expecting. I don’t really care about spoilers as I’ve read the book so please spoil away if you could.

 

It's violent enough, but not insanely high I guess...

 

Give it a chance and you'll love it, pal. XD

[dudalb]

I am  huge fan of the novel, and,  franky, would like to know what the major changes, aside from covering only the Losers as kids, are.

[shayhiri]

17 minutes ago, Cookson said:

WB really killed it this year. Lots of diverse films this films with great results.

 

IT only cost 35m to make... 

 

Absolutely terrible.

 

That was the last drop for me. At least I was hoping it was gonna look good - and now it turns out it's cheap fare.

[Jonwo]

$35m is a decent budget, there's no big actors in it and actually it's only $5m less than what The Conjuring 2 cost. Horror's a cheap genre so it's always when they spend more.

[DlAMONDZ]

Crazy how profitable horror movies are

[That One Girl]

9 minutes ago, shayhiri said:

 

Absolutely terrible.

 

That was the last drop for me. At least I was hoping it was gonna look good - and now it turns out it's cheap fare.

 

*yawns*

[Barnack]

5 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

$35m is a decent budget, there's no big actors in it and actually it's only $5m less than what The Conjuring 2 cost. Horror's a cheap genre so it's always when they spend more.

And there is also an element of net/reduced price point versus gross.

 

A movie like Conjuring 2 for example spent 35.6 million in the state of California:

https://www.filmla.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2016_film_study_WEB.pdf

 

Plus all the expense of shooting 10 days in London, plus the SFX shops in Canada

 

 

But it received 5.2 million in tax credit from the CA state:

http://film.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/CFC-Approved-Projects-List.pdf

 

I would imagine a bit from Canada and a bit from the UK

 

To get it down to that massed down 40m

 

IT 35m, is maybe closer to 45m before the Maine tax credit, others jurisdiction incentive and a bit of a rounding down of the number, with that low above the line cost outside the story rights acquisition, not necessarily too low of a budget.

 

I imagine they could have used a Fincher type 50-60m too and would have easily had that equivalent for a franchise movie like that not so long ago, around 2006-2010.

[TheDarkKnightOfSteel]

Since i joined the forum's this is the first thread that i'm commenting that also Shay comments.It's a weird experience.But an experience nonetheless.

Edited September 8, 2017 by TheDarkKnightOfSteel

[Boxofficerules]

I wonder if they'll split It Part 2 into 2 movies now.

[Barnack]

11 minutes ago, DlAMONDZ said:

Crazy how profitable horror movies are

I wonder how well they do once volume is taken into account, I imagine still a really nice ROI

 

Last year 27 achieve to get a theatrical release and made 479 million domestic together,

http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2016/genre/Horror

 

And average of 17.7 million, with how cheap the average horror movie is and how some are built around home video, must be the easiest genre right now to enter in, and why so many director take that road to enter the industry (and sometime get stuck in it, stepping out of it being a huge step).

 

I imagine there is much more that just does not get a theatrical release and eat a bit of the profits, but it must be low producing budget anyway they cost a lot only if they get a nice release.

 

Planet Money did an interview with someone that made a movie for Jason Blum and how it works (it is all and purely all a calculated way to make money that is very well thought)

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=521950337

 

 

[dudalb]

27 minutes ago, DlAMONDZ said:

Crazy how profitable horror movies are

If you keep the budget low enough, it is almost impossible to lose money on a Horror film. There is a sizable core audience you can depend on. If there is a sure bet in the film industry, a low budget horror film is it;an investment that ,even if it is not a huge hit, is almost guarantted to get your money back, and stands a good chance of making a profit. It it can catch on with mainstream audiences a la "the Conjuring" you got a cash cow on your hands.

I admit that Shay's eagerness to display his total ignorance about the film business at every opportunity can prove entertaining. As his comments about "It" shows. For a film with no stars and a story which requires  almost nothing in the way of fancy effects 35 Milliion, well handled, is more then enough.

Edited September 8, 2017 by dudalb

[snarkmachine]

I wonder how much WB spent on marketing. I feel like there was a TV spot playing every five minutes.

[Jonwo]

9 minutes ago, Boxofficerules said:

I wonder if they'll split It Part 2 into 2 movies now.

I doubt it unless WB wants a backlash!

[Rorschach]

1 hour ago, shayhiri said:

We're re-interrupting this thread with news of:

 

SHAY'S CINEMA SCHEDULE

 

As you may know, It opens tomorrow in Bulgaria against no other, but The Nut Job 2: Nutty by Nature. It will be a tough fight, quite even, but most bets go with the animated juggernaut.

 

Can you guess which movie I'm gonna see, first thing tomorrow?

 

You've guessed right: the illustrious animated squeakquel of the Korean mega-success of recent years. Then, I'm gonna see Logan Lucky, which also opens this weekend. I used to hate SODerbergh's cheap efforts with a passion some years ago - but then he took notice and went in semi-retirement, so I'm now willing to give the man another chance. THEN, I'm seeing Pirates 5, for the FIFTH time!! Yes, they are still showing it, FOUR months after it opened - and in a big hall too. People here just love fantasy - unlike a certain nation I hate.

 

And THEN, and only then, will I get to seeing IT - probably in two weeks time. THAT is how little I think of IT, horrors, and Stephen King in particular. (God, did he blow it with that Dark Tower. Hideous.)

Dude, you clearly already hate the movie even though you haven't seen it yet. Why even bother going to a movie that you aren't even interested in?

[dudalb]

4 minutes ago, snarkmachine said:

I wonder how much WB spent on marketing. I feel like there was a TV spot playing every five minutes.

A lot more then on the movie itself,which is not unusual nowdays.

I suspect that Warners, when they saw the rough cut, knew they had a potential hit on their hands, and decided it was a good risk  to spend a lot marketing it.

[dudalb]

4 minutes ago, Rorschach said:

Dude, you clearly already hate the movie even though you haven't seen it yet. Why even bother going to a movie that you aren't even interested in?

Hey, it's Shay, what can  you expect??

[Rorschach]

Just now, dudalb said:

Hey, it's Shay, what can  you expect??

[snarkmachine]

The kid cast was mostly phenomenal but I hated, hated, HATED the kid who played Stan. There was a guy behind me who would audibly groan whenever the camera panned over to him.

 

Same, dude, same.