carrie remake

Geez...what's next? Remakes of Dawn of the Dead or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre??

LMFAO!!!!

I saw they were doing the remake when i got my TV GUIDE in my Sunday newspaper. I just rolled my eyes and found the SPORTs section.

I agree about the first Carrie. I think brian De Palma's film IS VERY intense and has some of horror's most memorable images. If you had to picture images from horror in the GREAT 70's decade, visions of the EXORCIST, JAWS, THE SHINING would be no brainers. But you would HAFTA include the image and the way it was shot of Sissy Spacek with BLOOD dripping on her in her dress. That is something that is left to the viewer to think about in the book. Brian DePalma took his vision and showed the world his interpretation and to this day, it still holds up. Major credit for De Palma and Spacek, who i thought was a PERFECT Carrie.

I just do not see how it could improve. If anything, i see them choosing this title to 'remake' because De Palma's version was sooo good. Had De Palma NOT did the film he did, i question how this film's popularity would play.

Needless to say, you won't see me watching this series.

Did anyone else spot Katharine Isabelle (Ginger, from "Ginger Snaps") as Tina? She was really amusing, heh.

I must say I really hated that ending. It'll lead to a shitty series, no doubt. *sigh*

It was pointless... Being new, more faithful, and slapping a bunch of (bad) CGI doesn’t make something better. They couldn’t even make an original adaptation without ripping off shots and referencing the DePalma film. It was soulless. DePalma captured all of the angst so well... this one just didnt have any insight, just wanted to be a stupid, unneeded tv series I guess... actually cared less about the symbolism and emotion and just wanted to show new fx and a bunch of bland Dawsons Creek reject actors.

I thought the idea of Carrie as more seemingly mentally fragile, almost like a catatonic, was neat, but the director/writers didn’t flesh it out, didn’t get inside her head. The actress who played her is supposed to be in a great offbeat horror film called May about an introverted freak girl who builds her own boyfriend from body parts or something like that. She was capable enough in Carrie to make me want to see May even more. Other than that it was a waste.

[baggio]

The remake that the original poster was talking about wasn't the current one coming out. But I figure why start another thread.

This one stars Chloe Moretz & Julianne Moore. Here are the first photos.

[dave13]

man, Hollywood can go knock itself out. i just don't give a shit anymore.

[Ash28M]

Originally Posted by baggio

The remake that the original poster was talking about wasn't the current one coming out. But I figure why start another thread.

Well it is a different film.

[Matt89]

I saw this being filmed last week here in Toronto. Kind of excited to see how it turns out. Be interesting if this time around it followed the book more closely.

Plus, we may get a (very much needed) remastered SE blu ray of the original because of this.

~Matt

[bigdaddyhorse]

The first remake went so well, how can this be anything but gold?

So now we get a Carrie remake every 10 years?

Talk about out of ideas....

Let the poor girl R.I.P. already!

[Paff]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Be interesting if this time around it followed the book more closely.

Why?

I'm not being snarky on this, I'm genuinely curious as to why people want a Carrie that's closer to King's somewhat flawed novel. You're not the only person who's mentioned this, and I'm puzzled as to why anyone thinks the book is better than DePalma's movie.

I know Carrie goes on to destroy the town more in the book, and to that I say "So what?". You've never seen explosions and destruction in a movie before? More importantly, I think it alters the focus of Carrie's anger. In the film (and I sat "the", because there is only ONE film version of Carrie in my world), DePalma concentrates it to just the school and her mom, the two sources of Carrie's torment.

You also have the lame-ass death of Carrie's mom in the book, and without that amazing speech that Piper Laurie delivered.

Finally, there was a lot of reference to Carrie's powers earlier in her life. DePalma wisely eliminated that (to the point of deleting a childhood flashback scene) and coincided the power with her becoming a woman. That works on so many levels, it's fantastic. I hate the idea of Carrie always having the telekinetic power. It's so much better when you look at it as the power she now has as a woman.

Just so this is not a Matt89 hate-fest, I do agree on the need for a new Blu-Ray. I have to keep my old DVD, as none of the fanatastic special features made it to the Blu. And the transfer on the existing Blu ain't all that great either...

[Paff]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

Let the poor girl R.I.P. already!

No, according to what passes for her tombstone, she's burning in hell

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by Paff

No, according to what passes for her tombstone, she's burning in hell

My mistake, that was supposed to read R.I.H., not R.I.P.

[Copyboy]

I love Chloe Moretz and Julianne Moore, but seriously, what Paff said.

[vampyr789]

Originally Posted by Paff

I'm not being snarky on this, I'm genuinely curious as to why people want a Carrie that's closer to King's somewhat flawed novel. You're not the only person who's mentioned this, and I'm puzzled as to why anyone thinks the book is better than DePalma's movie.

I know Carrie goes on to destroy the town more in the book, and to that I say "So what?". You've never seen explosions and destruction in a movie before? More importantly, I think it alters the focus of Carrie's anger. In the film (and I sat "the", because there is only ONE film version of Carrie in my world), DePalma concentrates it to just the school and her mom, the two sources of Carrie's torment.

You also have the lame-ass death of Carrie's mom in the book, and without that amazing speech that Piper Laurie delivered.

Finally, there was a lot of reference to Carrie's powers earlier in her life. DePalma wisely eliminated that (to the point of deleting a childhood flashback scene) and coincided the power with her becoming a woman. That works on so many levels, it's fantastic. I hate the idea of Carrie always having the telekinetic power. It's so much better when you look at it as the power she now has as a woman.

Amen to that Paff... I used to think I was the only one who preferred the movie to the book.

But as for the remake, I like the casting so far.
I'm still waiting for an adaptation of It, b/c honestly the miniseries didn't cut it for me. I loved Tim Curry, but that was about it.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by Paff

Why?

I'm not being snarky on this, I'm genuinely curious as to why people want a Carrie that's closer to King's somewhat flawed novel. You're not the only person who's mentioned this, and I'm puzzled as to why anyone thinks the book is better than DePalma's movie.

I know Carrie goes on to destroy the town more in the book, and to that I say "So what?". You've never seen explosions and destruction in a movie before? More importantly, I think it alters the focus of Carrie's anger. In the film (and I sat "the", because there is only ONE film version of Carrie in my world), DePalma concentrates it to just the school and her mom, the two sources of Carrie's torment.

You also have the lame-ass death of Carrie's mom in the book, and without that amazing speech that Piper Laurie delivered.

Finally, there was a lot of reference to Carrie's powers earlier in her life. DePalma wisely eliminated that (to the point of deleting a childhood flashback scene) and coincided the power with her becoming a woman. That works on so many levels, it's fantastic. I hate the idea of Carrie always having the telekinetic power. It's so much better when you look at it as the power she now has as a woman.

Just so this is not a Matt89 hate-fest, I do agree on the need for a new Blu-Ray. I have to keep my old DVD, as none of the fanatastic special features made it to the Blu. And the transfer on the existing Blu ain't all that great either...

I agree with everything you said. I never meant to imply that King's book is better than DePalma's film. DePalma is one of my fav directors (I still say Blow Out is one of the top 5 best movies of the '80s - just my opinion). Carrie is also my favorite horror film, I just think that it would be interesting, if done properly, to see Carrie destroy the town or something.

I actually hated the novel, I have no idea how King was able to sell it as his first novel. It's actually pretty poorly written IMO.

~Matt

[Paff]

Originally Posted by Matt89

I actually hated the novel, I have no idea how King was able to sell it as his first novel. It's actually pretty poorly written IMO.

Seriously. What was up with all those parentheticals? And every time the suspense got ratcheted up, King would throw in some excerpt from one of those books supposedly written about the incident. It doesn't work as a faux-reality story.

But I was thumbing through the book last night, and did get one thing wrong in my previous post. Margaret White's speech is indeed in there, and Piper Laurie did it practically verbatim. So that part is not DePalma improvement, that's pure Steve-o