It (2017)

[Jason]

It Follows was ok. I have seen it three times already, and same result every time. Now, Insidious.....that there is a great modern horror movie.

I agree that It Follows was ok, but Insidious was laughably bad.

I think Jig, Jason, and I were the only ones who dug it.

Whoa, Nelly.

I haven't even seen Insidious, and truth be told, it's not high on my interest list.

Lol. I must be thinking of another movie. You should check it out though. I wanted to hate it.

insidious is good from what i remember.

Part two was shit though, from what I remember.

don't you dare!

i haven't seen it.

Knowing what I know now about part 2, I never would've watched it. And I really dug the first one.

[Foo]

Are you saying you have literally not read anything I have written and then just made that assertion?

sorry, tier 2 was included. my mistake. but even then, halloween is a tier 3 by your metric? and it has an influence on investors and such.

Ok, the fact that I put it on a tier would indicate a level of influence, yes? Let me simplify.

Tier 1- Total game changer. Possible once in a lifetime level of business in the genre. Reach extends to be part of the mainstream consciousness, a measuring stick by what everything else is measured, etc.

Tier 2 - a mega hit in its own right. Known beyond the genre and by casual movie fans. Is a topic of discussion within the industry.

Tier 3 - a hit movie, still spawns imitation, but likely with tight budget restraints and closer replicating the formula.

Tiers of business influence go on further, even to points of negative influence. Certainly anything in the top 3-5 tiers can be meaningful depending on production costs and so forth. On the lower end of positive influence could be as small as direct to consumer sequels.

it just seems like you're putting a weird spin on what the numbers mean, particularly beyond your tier 1.

It applies to any business that sells a variety of products.

Lets say you are a toy company looking to replicate success.

Tier 1 - Barbie. GI Joe. They change the game. A shift in the entire industry. Before GI Joe, the idea of a male child playing with a doll was not in the mainstream.

Tier 2 - would again be hugely successful. And again, imitators would be spawned. Spinoffs, etc. Company is actively looking to repeat the success. Ez Bake Oven. Legos. Etch a Sketch.

Tier 3 - still a hit toy. Still has imitators.

Etc.

[DancesWithWerewolves]

It Follows was ok. I have seen it three times already, and same result every time. Now, Insidious.....that there is a great modern horror movie.

I agree that It Follows was ok, but Insidious was laughably bad.

I think Jig, Jason, and I were the only ones who dug it.

Whoa, Nelly.

I haven't even seen Insidious, and truth be told, it's not high on my interest list.

Lol. I must be thinking of another movie. You should check it out though. I wanted to hate it.

insidious is good from what i remember.

Part two was shit though, from what I remember.

don't you dare!

i haven't seen it.

Knowing what I know now about part 2, I never would've watched it. And I really dug the first one.

Insidious 2 is good for filler/backstory but that's it.

[Jason]

It Follows was ok. I have seen it three times already, and same result every time. Now, Insidious.....that there is a great modern horror movie.

I agree that It Follows was ok, but Insidious was laughably bad.

I think Jig, Jason, and I were the only ones who dug it.

Whoa, Nelly.

I haven't even seen Insidious, and truth be told, it's not high on my interest list.

Lol. I must be thinking of another movie. You should check it out though. I wanted to hate it.

insidious is good from what i remember.

Part two was shit though, from what I remember.

don't you dare!

i haven't seen it.

Knowing what I know now about part 2, I never would've watched it. And I really dug the first one.

Insidious 2 is good for filler/backstory but that's it.

Spoiler

---

I hated how it tied every mystery from the first one into the 2nd. Loved seeing Patrick Wilson's reaction to the alarm going off and the door being open in the first one. Oop, turns out it was actually him astral projecting at a later date! Lame. Should've left it alone. Same with the old woman. It was an old woman in the first movie (yeah, I know it's always been a guy under the costume), there was no need to show it was just some weird old dude who happened to be a drag queen in a previous life.

Come to think of it, Zomb might like it then, since he's like a 5-star RHPS fan and this movie has a surprise drag queen. :p

[DancesWithWerewolves]

And I'm off to go watch It again. This time with Alli.

[Slaughterhouserock]

Consensus I'm getting from IT are not spectacular, but at minimum pretty damn good. The only negative review is from Slaughter.

I just pointed out what I didn't like, I still thought it was decent.

[zombie]

It applies to any business that sells a variety of products.

Lets say you are a toy company looking to replicate success.

Tier 1 - Barbie. GI Joe. They change the game. A shift in the entire industry. Before GI Joe, the idea of a male child playing with a doll was not in the mainstream.

Tier 2 - would again be hugely successful. And again, imitators would be spawned. Spinoffs, etc. Company is actively looking to repeat the success. Ez Bake Oven. Legos. Etch a Sketch.

Tier 3 - still a hit toy. Still has imitators.

Etc.

amityville is tier 2? no imitators (unless you include the sequels and remake).

also, i think we should look, first, at the success that a movie achieves in the given year that it's released. 1939 dollars did not pay fro it. 2017 dollars did. that needs to be taken into account. adjusting for inflation should be for historical purposes. but not for whether the movie succeeds in it's time.

[zombie]

Knowing what I know now about part 2, I never would've watched it. And I really dug the first one.

i think i prefer the conjuring to insidious, but i need to give them both a rewatch.

[Foo]

It applies to any business that sells a variety of products.

Lets say you are a toy company looking to replicate success.

Tier 1 - Barbie. GI Joe. They change the game. A shift in the entire industry. Before GI Joe, the idea of a male child playing with a doll was not in the mainstream.

Tier 2 - would again be hugely successful. And again, imitators would be spawned. Spinoffs, etc. Company is actively looking to repeat the success. Ez Bake Oven. Legos. Etch a Sketch.

Tier 3 - still a hit toy. Still has imitators.

Etc.

amityville is tier 2? no imitators (unless you include the sequels and remake).

also, i think we should look, first, at the success that a movie achieves in the given year that it's released. 1939 dollars did not pay fro it. 2017 dollars did. that needs to be taken into account. adjusting for inflation should be for historical purposes. but not for whether the movie succeeds in it's time.

Ok, I don't think I can get you to understand.

[zombie]

It applies to any business that sells a variety of products.

Lets say you are a toy company looking to replicate success.

Tier 1 - Barbie. GI Joe. They change the game. A shift in the entire industry. Before GI Joe, the idea of a male child playing with a doll was not in the mainstream.

Tier 2 - would again be hugely successful. And again, imitators would be spawned. Spinoffs, etc. Company is actively looking to repeat the success. Ez Bake Oven. Legos. Etch a Sketch.

Tier 3 - still a hit toy. Still has imitators.

Etc.

amityville is tier 2? no imitators (unless you include the sequels and remake).

also, i think we should look, first, at the success that a movie achieves in the given year that it's released. 1939 dollars did not pay fro it. 2017 dollars did. that needs to be taken into account. adjusting for inflation should be for historical purposes. but not for whether the movie succeeds in it's time.

Ok, I don't think I can get you to understand.

i guess not. it is expected to make somewhere around 80-100 mill this weekend, in 2017 dollars. whatever that means for your tier system.

[Reign in Blood]

Consensus I'm getting from IT are not spectacular, but at minimum pretty damn good. The only negative review is from Slaughter.

I just pointed out what I didn't like, I still thought it was decent.

Agreed. Because it wasn't cheesy or smut, I thought your review put it in the positive for sure.

[Jason]

To clarify, I've seen negative reviews, or reviews that highlight some negatives. Slaughters opinion is the only one I gave a damn about.

[Havok]

I thought IT was decent, I enjoyed the performance of Pennywise and the kids did a fine job as well. Didn't really find anything creepy or scary like the rest of the casuals in my viewing audience. It did have a somewhat haunted house feel in a few parts. Some characters didn't get too much depth, which I understand the reasoning for that choice. The House/Kitchen scene with Eddie I liked and aspects of the finale was solid as well. Out of 10, I would probably give it a 7.

Compared to everything I've sat through, IT is one of the better theatrical horror films I've seen this year. Being in my top 5 doesn't really say much when there's only been like 6 worthwhile movies that wasn't utter and complete shit like Rings, Wish Upon and Bye Bye Man.

[zombie]

It applies to any business that sells a variety of products.

Lets say you are a toy company looking to replicate success.

Tier 1 - Barbie. GI Joe. They change the game. A shift in the entire industry. Before GI Joe, the idea of a male child playing with a doll was not in the mainstream.

Tier 2 - would again be hugely successful. And again, imitators would be spawned. Spinoffs, etc. Company is actively looking to repeat the success. Ez Bake Oven. Legos. Etch a Sketch.

Tier 3 - still a hit toy. Still has imitators.

Etc.

amityville is tier 2? no imitators (unless you include the sequels and remake).

also, i think we should look, first, at the success that a movie achieves in the given year that it's released. 1939 dollars did not pay fro it. 2017 dollars did. that needs to be taken into account. adjusting for inflation should be for historical purposes. but not for whether the movie succeeds in it's time.

Ok, I don't think I can get you to understand.

you might not wanna bother, but i would like to understand the viewpoint. what do you think makes a horror movie most successful? (like tier 1). you said firmly mainstream. what does that mean to you? to me, it seems like safe and generic, which seems counter to what makes for good horror.

[Foo]

Obviously, the Exorcist is about as far away from safe and generic as you can get. It was the 1970's and an adolescent girl is pounding a cross into her vagina until she is drenched in blood, cursing at priests, and graphically vomiting on screen.

I am talking 100%, purely, absolutely, distinctly, specifically about financial success and how it influences the industry. Not artsy fartsy bullshit about what movie is better or most stylish. Just what moves the needle within the industry and how it influences future greenlighting and marketing.

When you get hung up on what movies you like better, it has nothing to do with my premise. McDonalds does not make the best burgers, but the make the most burgers. They are needle movers in their industry for that reason. Some dude in a shitty diner somewhere is probably making the best burgers in the world, but he is not a needle mover.

Also, influence can take many forms. For instance, Deadpool was a needle mover last year. The financial success meant more R-rated films will hit theaters. It will influence the marketing of new films. It will influence tone of films and scripts that are green lit. The combined success of Guardians and Deadpool mean more b-level superhero movies will be green lit.

When we look at the Exorcist as a Tier 1, simply consider the portion of the nation who went and paid money to see it. Less population at the time, yet MANY more tickets sold. It dominated the public conversation in a way that only a few movies ever have. It loomed in the minds of industry decision makers for a very long time.

Again, just because something is not tier 1 does not mean it is not influential and a huge hit in its own right. Halloween is on a lower tier but still influential. F13 is a tier or two below Halloween, but still influential. NOES is a tier below F13 but still influential.

I hate the Scream movies, but they were massive influences on what got made for the better part of a decade. Tone, marketing, casting, etc. in that era were all influenced by the success of the Scream movies.

[Jason]

Saw it tonight. Was pretty good. My main gripe is just the opening scene, introducing Pennywise. In the original, Pennywise (while obviously creepy) genuinely came off as a clown trying to win over the trust of an unsuspecting child. Maybe it's just Curry being a million times better, but the original captured the essence of Pennywise perfectly. Go back and rewatch the original Georgie scene. Listen to Curry and the way he's behaving when he's trying to win over his trust, then observe the way he reacts when Georgie finally gives him his trust and asks "do they float". You can totally feel the excitement in Pennywise's voice of the hell he is about to unleash on this fucking kid. The makers of this movie definitely did not grasp that scene at all. That scene is so much more than a creepy clown pulling a kid into the sewers. I thought the movie was in trouble at this point. But it actually did really well the rest of the way. My remaining complaints are mostly just nitpicky shit that comes with every modern horror flick. Overuse of CGI, the super loud drum pounding at every intense moment. Shit like that. Still did a good job feeling creepy and capturing the camaraderie of youngsters at that age.

Overall, most definitely prefer the original part 1, but the remake didn't shatter my hopes like I feared it could. About a 7/10 feels right.

[zombie]

Obviously, the Exorcist is about as far away from safe and generic as you can get. It was the 1970's and an adolescent girl is pounding a cross into her vagina until she is drenched in blood, cursing at priests, and graphically vomiting on screen.

I am talking 100%, purely, absolutely, distinctly, specifically about financial success and how it influences the industry. Not artsy fartsy bullshit about what movie is better or most stylish. Just what moves the needle within the industry and how it influences future greenlighting and marketing.

When you get hung up on what movies you like better, it has nothing to do with my premise. McDonalds does not make the best burgers, but the make the most burgers. They are needle movers in their industry for that reason. Some dude in a shitty diner somewhere is probably making the best burgers in the world, but he is not a needle mover.

Also, influence can take many forms. For instance, Deadpool was a needle mover last year. The financial success meant more R-rated films will hit theaters. It will influence the marketing of new films. It will influence tone of films and scripts that are green lit. The combined success of Guardians and Deadpool mean more b-level superhero movies will be green lit.

When we look at the Exorcist as a Tier 1, simply consider the portion of the nation who went and paid money to see it. Less population at the time, yet MANY more tickets sold. It dominated the public conversation in a way that only a few movies ever have. It loomed in the minds of industry decision makers for a very long time.

Again, just because something is not tier 1 does not mean it is not influential and a huge hit in its own right. Halloween is on a lower tier but still influential. F13 is a tier or two below Halloween, but still influential. NOES is a tier below F13 but still influential.

I hate the Scream movies, but they were massive influences on what got made for the better part of a decade. Tone, marketing, casting, etc. in that era were all influenced by the success of the Scream movies.

i'm not getting hung up on whether i like the movie or not. the exorcist is the highest grossing pure horror, after adjusting for inflation. and i agree that the exorcist is not safe. but your words were ""firmly mainstream", that seems to be something to do with the content of the movie? you've said before that friday the 13th needed the edits to appeal to a large audience as example. so when you said "firmly mainstream", i thought you were talking something other than just numbers and profit?

[Jigsaw]

Saw it tonight. Was pretty good. My main gripe is just the opening scene, introducing Pennywise. In the original, Pennywise (while obviously creepy) genuinely came off as a clown trying to win over the trust of an unsuspecting child. Maybe it's just Curry being a million times better, but the original captured the essence of Pennywise perfectly. Go back and rewatch the original Georgie scene. Listen to Curry and the way he's behaving when he's trying to win over his trust, then observe the way he reacts when Georgie finally gives him his trust and asks "do they float". You can totally feel the excitement in Pennywise's voice of the hell he is about to unleash on this fucking kid. The makers of this movie definitely did not grasp that scene at all. That scene is so much more than a creepy clown pulling a kid into the sewers. I thought the movie was in trouble at this point. But it actually did really well the rest of the way. My remaining complaints are mostly just nitpicky shit that comes with every modern horror flick. Overuse of CGI, the super loud drum pounding at every intense moment. Shit like that. Still did a good job feeling creepy and capturing the camaraderie of youngsters at that age.

Overall, most definitely prefer the original part 1, but the remake didn't shatter my hopes like I feared it could. About a 7/10 feels right.

Seems like most people here thought the movie was worth it.

I had a lot of minor gripes (I was considering making a list and posting another thread about it, but I might wait another week), but truth be told, your main one never bothered me.

Curry did well in his introduction scene, but I thought this guy did decent also (describing "pop-pop-popcorn" the way he did, for instance, made him relate more to the kid). I thought it was virtually on par with the original, and it doesn't hurt that we actually got to see Georgie's arm ripped off, which I rather liked (and the subsequent arm reaching out of the sewer slowly to drag him in).

[Reign in Blood]

Saw it tonight. Was pretty good. My main gripe is just the opening scene, introducing Pennywise. In the original, Pennywise (while obviously creepy) genuinely came off as a clown trying to win over the trust of an unsuspecting child. Maybe it's just Curry being a million times better, but the original captured the essence of Pennywise perfectly. Go back and rewatch the original Georgie scene. Listen to Curry and the way he's behaving when he's trying to win over his trust, then observe the way he reacts when Georgie finally gives him his trust and asks "do they float". You can totally feel the excitement in Pennywise's voice of the hell he is about to unleash on this fucking kid. The makers of this movie definitely did not grasp that scene at all. That scene is so much more than a creepy clown pulling a kid into the sewers. I thought the movie was in trouble at this point. But it actually did really well the rest of the way. My remaining complaints are mostly just nitpicky shit that comes with every modern horror flick. Overuse of CGI, the super loud drum pounding at every intense moment. Shit like that. Still did a good job feeling creepy and capturing the camaraderie of youngsters at that age.

Overall, most definitely prefer the original part 1, but the remake didn't shatter my hopes like I feared it could. About a 7/10 feels right.

I was saying that just from the trailer, the luring Georgie in vs. being creepy from the jump.

[Foo]

Saw it tonight. Was pretty good. My main gripe is just the opening scene, introducing Pennywise. In the original, Pennywise (while obviously creepy) genuinely came off as a clown trying to win over the trust of an unsuspecting child. Maybe it's just Curry being a million times better, but the original captured the essence of Pennywise perfectly. Go back and rewatch the original Georgie scene. Listen to Curry and the way he's behaving when he's trying to win over his trust, then observe the way he reacts when Georgie finally gives him his trust and asks "do they float". You can totally feel the excitement in Pennywise's voice of the hell he is about to unleash on this fucking kid. The makers of this movie definitely did not grasp that scene at all. That scene is so much more than a creepy clown pulling a kid into the sewers. I thought the movie was in trouble at this point. But it actually did really well the rest of the way. My remaining complaints are mostly just nitpicky shit that comes with every modern horror flick. Overuse of CGI, the super loud drum pounding at every intense moment. Shit like that. Still did a good job feeling creepy and capturing the camaraderie of youngsters at that age.

Overall, most definitely prefer the original part 1, but the remake didn't shatter my hopes like I feared it could. About a 7/10 feels right.

I was saying that just from the trailer, the luring Georgie in vs. being creepy from the jump.

Could a big part of that be because this is a time compressed remake with a marketing campaign centered on the clown? Audiences at that time were discovering the clown, audiences this time already know the motives are sinister.