It: Chapter One ($671,678,434)

Rusty wrote:Same. I tried to give the original a re-watch back when I heard Fukunaga was attached to this. I lasted about 30 minutes. It was fucking terrible.

Probably why this was one remake that no-one ever complained about being made. Everyone knows the original was shit and doesn't come close to holding up over time.

IT is one of the biggest hits of the year, so perhaps it’s no surprise that Warner Bros. is going to pump some money into a director’s cut. Director Andy Muschietti revealed to Yahoo! that his director’s cut that will be released with the regular edition on home video at the end of the year.

As for what the director’s cut will contain, Muschietti didn’t go too much into specifics, but he did note one scene that was particularly difficult to cut:

“There’s a great scene, it’s a bit of a payoff of the Stanley Uris plot which is the bar mitzvah, where he delivers a speech against all expectations… it’s basically blaming all the adults of Derry [for the town’s history of deadly “accidents” and child disappearances], and it has a great resolution. … Maybe it will be in the director’s cut!”

While I think IT is pretty great, a director’s cut could definitely help bring a bit more shading and definition to underserved characters like Stanley and Mike.

Muschietti says that the director’s cut will probably be an extra 15 minutes and be “for hardcore fans” with an extended “very funny” scene of the Losers Club trying to hype themselves up to jump off the cliff into the water below. “After the spitting contest it escalates into something that is completely weird and irrelevant to the scene but is so funny. Jack Grazer, who plays Eddie, does something that is completely bonkers,” says Muschietti.

There’s no release date yet for the Blu-ray/DVD, but it’s expected that Warner Bros. will try to get it out before the holidays because they like making lots of money. In all seriousness, I’m glad that Warner Bros. is going to make sure the director’s cut is on the upcoming release rather than trying to go for a double-dip where they release the theatrical version only and then hold the director’s cut for a later date.

WyldeMan wrote:Nice, I've read Andy make a few comments about scenes he'd love to put back into a DC, none involve scares he put all of that onscreen but there's more character development in those 15 minutes so I'm all for it and will definitely be keeping a close out for that release.

Rusty wrote:Yep. I was contemplating where or not to go see this, but news of a Directors Cut Blu-Ray made the decision for me. I'll wait for the Blu.

UltimateMarvel wrote:I heard highest horror film to bring this kind of money in. This will change things for Bill for sure.

WyldeMan wrote:It's on torrents everywhere.

WyldeMan wrote:Huh, so that's what all the hype was about? Damn.....

I must have watched a different movie than the one that shattered all those records, made loads of money and terrified legions of fans cause what I just watched was boring and mediocre and not even remotely scary since it was nothing but CGI violence and pretty much a lackluster retread of the lackluster miniseries of 25 years ago.

FUCKIN WEAK SAUCE! I'm just left scratching my damn head and wondering what is it that I missed cause it was exactly like every other horror movie of the last 15 years.

Gremlins is scarier than this mess. Somebody please help me out here cause this felt like I was watching Mama all over again.

Rusty wrote:I was expecting this, which is why I've been in no rush to check it out yet.

The Half in the Bag video I posted earlier said pretty much the same thing.

UltimateMarvel wrote:Yeah, it's the eyes that are more scary than anything else. It looked ok in the end when he opened his mouth and floated Beverly though.

WyldeMan wrote:

UltimateMarvel wrote:Yeah, it's the eyes that are more scary than anything else. It looked ok in the end when he opened his mouth and floated Beverly though.

I had such high hopes for about two decades then when this version finally neared release it was pure hype and I was so disappointed immediately from the Georgie scene on. Beverly was a tragic character, though very altered from the book once more. She'll end up being played by Jessica Chastain.

UltimateMarvel wrote:I think Jessica will play her too given that she's worked with the director on Mama before and she's a perfect fit.

I think you had high expectation Wylde. I went in knowing nothing and I liked it. Your prior knowledge killed your viewing experience, you have failed this movie!

How is Beverly different in the book?

WyldeMan wrote:Beverly has a much more traumatized life where you see just how twisted her father really was. Also since all the 13 year olds thought they were gonna die in their final sewer Beverly convinced them to have a gangbang in the sewer since they didn't want to die virgins but in the movie she had them become blood brothers. Those are just a few variations. Horrific violence is perfectly acceptable but we must NEVER discuss sex because that would be unhealthy.

joey con carne wrote:What's with Pennywise's eyes in the shot of him biting Georgie's arm? It's like he's saying "HURRRRRRRRRRR".

Then I looked up the actor. And that's normal, not make-up.

joey con carne wrote:According to the trivia on IMDb, Bill Skarsgård can move his eyes in separate directions. That was not CGI. That's pretty cool but he still looks retarded.

Though CGI was used in some scenes, Bill Skarsgård was actually able to move his eyes in different directions in some scenes at the behest of Andy Muschietti. At first, it was uncertain if he was able to achieve this effect on his own, yet Skarsgård assures, "I can do that." The purpose of this was to add to an already unsettling and disturbing look to Pennywise.