With a budget of only 70 million and a domestic gross so far at 153 million this movie is already profitable after only 10 days!
Marketing and distribution costs don't matter as they are covered by home media.
This is not even counting the hundreds of millions this is making overseas!
Streaming or Download here https://bit.ly/2SSJiSZ
enjoy watching!
Not as profitable as most disney movies
shareAlready profitable from domestic alone!!!
^^^
I find 2 things about thread quite funny.....
#1. I truly can not imagine Any Scenario where Disney put A sequel out, where that sequel had a 32 Million dollar LESS Opening than its predecessor, and YOU Queen would not have called that anything but Disappointing....I can not imagine literally any Disney film that Opened to 123 M and Then Its sequel comes out only 2 years later and Its LOSES over 25% of its audience and has a 32 Million dollar Less Opening, and you wouldnt make a half dozen troll threads declaring The sequel did not live up to expectations and The World was falling in on Disney....
#2. I find the Irony of this thread absolutely priceless, the fact that you did not realize the massive contradiction you were making when you made this thread, truly brings a smile to my face....
This exact thread, The exact points you are making in this thread, EXACTLY apply to The Lion King(a film you spent 6 months claiming is a disappointment)
lol The Lion King made Disney a Profit Just from Its Domestic take ALONE too
The Lion Kings Budget was 270 M....Disney Netted a Minimum of 290 Million from The Lion King Domestic take....Since You clearly state in this thread, Marketing and distribution costs don't matter as they are covered by home media.
every single point you made in this thread directly applies to The Lion King
The Lion King Is already Profitable Just from its domestic take.
Marketing and distribution will be covered by The Lion King's Massive home media.
and that Not Even counting The BILLIONS TLK is making overseas, lol Disney Will Net 50 to 55% of The Lion Kings 1 Billion dollar + overseas gross, Unlike WB who nets 50 to 55% of "Its" 350 to 400 Million Overseas gross...
Oh and Lets not forget the Absurd amount Disney is also making from TLKs Merchandising
lol so , congrats....you fought for 6 months trying to claim TLK was a disappointment and in the end, it is Hilarious YOU who provides the The end all be all proof that TLK is in fact a monster hit with this thread where every single POINT you make to try and brag about "It" also Applies to The Lion King(Only In TLKs case, While every point applies, TLK is also Much more success in every way too)
So the question now needs to be asked....If you are not biased toward Disney Queen....why havent you made a thread on The Lion King's board titled "Already profitable from domestic alone!!!...Even More Profitable than "It"
I just dont see anyway around it, If you think "It's" box office is impressive enough to make a thread about, then you should absolutely be blown away by The Lion King's Box office which Not only meets every single point you bragged about in This thread about "It" but exceeds them...
If your impressed with "It" already being profitable on just its domestic gross, It only makes since you would be just as impressed with TLK Making double of "It's" domestic gross and Profiting Just off Its domestic take alone.
If Your Impressed with "Its" Hundreds of Millions of dollars its making overseas, It only making since you've got to be even more impressed by TLK's BILLIONS of dollars overseas.
lol Queen this is a perfect example of why you are the Worst at Trolling...
I think, probably what happened here is, You saw "It 2's" lower than expected box office results, and wanted to try to come up with a way to spin this into a Positive, so You got to thinking, and came up with this "Hey Its already broken even with Just its domestic take" as a way to distract from Its HUGE drop off from Part 1...
Hilariously though, you at no point thought about how DAMAGING this desperate tactic could be for you, You didnt realize every single thing you said why trying to brag about "IT 2" also applies to TLK...and now makes it impossible for you to claim TLK anything but a Monster hit...
Wish they could've somehow used that overseas money to retroactively make a better ending than the squad bullying it to death.
shareI think if they had killed it like you would a normal person (if they could) then it would've been duller.
I fail to see how it's disappointing, UltravioletX. I mean, they overcame their fear of it as children and beat it into submission with sticks and chains, and now, because Pennywise is basically a bully, they're giving him a taste of his own medicine by mocking him and making him feel small, and since he's a shapeshifter, he literally becomes small.
What else could they have done? Please, post suggestions here. And don't forget, IT is beaten by childish impulses.
Honestly there's a lot they could do. While watching the ending I noticed the beam that creates the dead lights is not generated from the clown but from a point behind it. Maybe have that be the actual entity that they didn't know about until they got a good look at the dead lights. Instead of the Ritual of Chud completely failing, have it work partially, but it doesn't succeed all the way because the clown isn't the real entity. It weakens it. They make their way up to the source of the dead lights and find its rather defenseless, like a brain or heart. After walking up to it, they grab hands, and stomp on it together. The clown that is still hurt by the ritual is still trying to climb up after them. After crushing the entity, the clown is now a shell of its former self. They see it begin to die. Or they simply overpower it. Or they drag it out with them as evidence. There are lots of things you could come up with thats better than yelling names at it.
share"until they got a good look at the dead lights"
Um, it is stated in the book that anyone who even glances at the Deadlights goes insane, comatose or dies. Pennywise simply wanted to immobilise Beverly because she wasn't afraid of him, as a lure for the other Losers, and I think he would've killed Richie with the full force of the Deadlights if Eddie hadn't speared him.
"Instead of the Ritual of Chud completely failing"
It failed because it was, as Pennywise said himself, a "silly little ritual", and didn't need anything as elaborate as that to defeat him, but something simpler, more basic. It feeds on fear, but it doesn't like to be afraid itself. It actually experienced this for the first time when the Losers AS CHILDREN beat it. In a way, Pennywise has the mind of a child, too.
Your description sounds more convoluted, I think. And in any case, something just as simple happened in the book, too, like "mentally biting on tongues" or something. As for Maturin, he was no use as he was dead by then, anyway.
The dead lights can be seen without staring directly into them. He catches you in them when he opens his mouth directly in front of you. If you are off to the side, you can see that beam that leads to his head without being caught in them.
With the Ritual of Chud, you are arguing for the sake of argument. "Silly little ritual" is what the screenwriters wrote.
My description of what? The spider doesn't have to be its true form. I'm merely saying its the thing behind it... that thing thats emitting the dead lights that we never even got to see.
Look we get it. You like the movie. Anything someone else says that would be better, you're going to argue against it. Lets just quit right here, okay? There's obviously no point in trying to change your mind when its set. And for damn sure there's no way you can convince me that a bunch of adults bullying IT to death was a good idea.
"Anything someone else says that would be better, you're going to argue against it."
You think it would be better. What's the use if it's not in the movie? I don't know why the debate of "if only" is discussed in movies, there's no point. It's always baffled me.
"And for damn sure there's no way you can convince me that a bunch of adults bullying IT to death was the best idea."
I bet you didn't like it when they beat up Pennywise to a pulp in the first movie, neither. I know not many did, but again, that's the meaning of the term "adaptation".
You asked for me to make up something better. I did it in five minutes.
I don't even remember Pennywise being beaten to a pulp. All I remember is that dumb giant spider.
"You asked for me to make up something better. I did it in five minutes."
But it was not in the book. I'm satisfied with it because Stephen King gave both IT movies his blessing, and he doesn't always do that. He despised The Shining movie by Kubrick.
"I don't even remember Pennywise being beaten to a pulp."
The 2017 movie, I was referring to.
"All I remember is that dumb giant spider."
(sigh) I think the spider is always going to be contentious among casual viewers of IT. Stephen King just can't win with it, but I think a Spider Pennywise makes most sense. It would be jarring if it looked completely different to what we've seen so far, which is why the 1990 miniseries failed.
And it was a terrible movie. Just shows that the masses are a bunch of sheep.
share