Creepy IT REMAKE website

Check out the creepy IT remake website at itremake.com.

From the site:

Cary Fukunaga is the last person we heard was attached to this project, which is planned as a series of two films, to accommodate the massive 1100-page tale of an evil monster who shape shifts into a murderous clown named Pennywise, and the group of friends who have to stop it. The inclusion of Fukunaga is a very positive sign that we’re in for a well-made It Remake.

Fukunaga's resume has some pretty impressive credits on it, starting with his feature film debut Sin Nombre, an emotional, harrowing tale of children trying to escape gang life in Honduras and leave the country. The movie picked up the Directing Award and Sundance and a pile of other prizes from film festivals and award shows. He then went on to direct a 2010 adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre with Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. This too was critically acclaimed and even picked up an Academy Award nomination for Costume Design. Perhaps Fukunaga's biggest credit to date has been the zeitgeist-filling hardboiled HBO detective series True Detective, where he was the sole director for the first season's eight episodes. In terms of his writing skills, he’s done much less writing than directing – though he did write the acclaimed Sin Nombre.

We have yet to hear any casting rumours, but stay tuned to ItRemake.com for more information about this film.

The site also offers the case for the remake:

Why remake IT?  Anyone that has read the book and then seen the 1990 movie can tell you that the movie itself was terrifying, so why mess with something that was already done?  The answer to the question of why remake IT is quite simple, the technology is better now than it was back in 1990 when the first movie was done.  Computers have impacted the way that movies are made now, so with even better technology, the IT remake is guaranteed to be even more terrifying than the original.

Whenever you hear the words movie remake, you immediately feel the need to cringe.  You get images in your head of beloved movies being redone, and possible in the worst ways imaginable.  Warner Brothers has decided to take the Stephen King movie, IT and remake it.  Though the idea of this remake can worry you, the film studio has promised that IT will be just as scary as King’s novel and the 1990 movie.  Over twenty years has passed since IT came out as a movie, and now with the newest movie-making technology, the remake of this classic is  sure to be a terrifying movie experience. 

Examiner Calls CARRIE remake a "mess"

Examiner posted Tim Estiloz review of the CARRIE remake.  Does he like it?  Well, he does say it is fun in parts, but the truth is that he does not think it was a strong film.  He says the original stands the test of time and that a remake was unneeded.  Here's the bullet point version. (I'm drawing these from HIS points, they are not mine!)

• The remake offers nothing new.
• Pierce follows DePalma's vision while at the same time tries to move in her own direction.
• Pierce "tinkers" with the characters, resulting in a more shallow rendering of the story itself. He points out Margaret White in particular, noting, "Margaret is now not only an overly religious zealot bathing herself and Carrie in misplaced guilt; but also, she's a self-mutilating cutter doing additional outer damage to the body that already shelters her damaged psyche."
• Carrie comes across as a "mildly rebellious teenager" -- not the "frail and frightened teen tht Spacek played to perfection."  (I think I liked the more confident Carrie.)
• DePalma built the final scene up with such suspense that it "evoked Hitchcock at his finest."  However, Estiloz calls the Pierce version "bland and tension free."  why?  Because we already know what's going to happen!  That's not exactly Pierce's fault, except that she chose to remake a popular classic film.  Hey, try remaking Star Wars and see if we're not really surprised when Darth Vader turns out to be Luke's father -- again.  Discussing the moment when pigs blood is dumped on Carrie, Estiloz says, "rather than keep us on the edge of our seats anticipating that moment, Pierce rushes to the event as if it's just the first inconsequential cog in a wheel of repetitive and overdone visuals for shock value alone."  Ouch.
• In DePalma's film, Carrie is shown  out of control.  The Pierce version gives us a Carrie who is completely aware of what she is doing.  I had not thought about this until Estiloz pointed it out.  Maybe this is why I hate movie reviews -- because I end up agreeing with them when I don't want to.  He's totally right!  This Carrie is taking eye for eye, while DePalma's Carrie was simply at the mercy of her own powers seeping out of her; she is simply "unable to escape her deadly rage."

Estiloz closes with a few kind words for Moretz and Moore while taking another final digs at Kimberly Pierce:

Moretz and Moore do admirable work for the roles they're saddled with; doing their best to add some dimension to a screenplay where dimension is sorely lacking. The two actresses vainly attempt to elevate the burden of banality that weighs this film down. However despite their efforts, they cannot overcome director Pierce's misguided vision for this bloody mess of a remake.

I think the many folk looking to remake other King films might take note.  There is a growing chorus of "why bother" beginning to circle these movies.  Do we need another Pet Sematary?  No!  If all these remakes would pool their money, maybe someone could get started on The Dark Tower.

www.examiner.com

The Movies I Wish They'd Make

Kinda sad, isn't it -- no one asks constant reader what King books we'd like to see brought to the big screen.  Instead we have to stomach a parade of remakes.  News of a Pet Sematary remake is alive once again, and an IT remake, and a trilogy promised of The Stand, and a Running man remake, and there was that recent Carrie remake, and let's not forget the Salem's Lot remake and then there was that dreadful Children of the Corn remake (shiver.)

We cringe at a lot of these remakes because they are just so unnecessary.  I'll watch them, and probably enjoy them, all the while wondering what happened to Cell, From a Buick 8, Rose Madder, and all those gems in Four Past Midnight.  It seems someone buys the rights, and then they disappear into a dark hole.

So, here's  my top 10 list of Stephen King adaptations I'd actually like to see:

• The Dark Tower
• 11/22/63
• Eyes of the Dragon
• Duma Key
• Cell
• The Talisman
• A Good Marriage
• 1922
• Doctor Sleep
• The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon

Yes, I do know some of those are actually being made right now.

Remakes I would be just fine with:
IT (ONE season series)
Needful Things (as a mini-series please)
The Running Man
The Tommyknockers

Ramakes: Hate them or love them?

With my thoughts on remakes today -- I wonder what the general consensus is.   Are they worth while?

Here are some remakes I hated:

• Amityville Horror.  Oh yeah, they said they were going back to the book.  They didn't.  But the book is pretty awesomely stupid.  It's like kids telling a story; ". . . and then she was levitating off the bed, and then we saw a ghost, but the ghost was a pig, and then there was black goop, and then the pig left tracks in the snow, and then we found a secret red room, and then. . . "
• Psycho.  Using the same script as Hitchcock used, and the same pacing -- the only thing different was  that it was in color.  And something just didn't feel right. 
• Annie.  Did we need to remake that?  No.
• Miracle on 34th Street.  The remake is sweet, but the  magic couldn't be reproduced. 
• Mr. Deeds was petty good for its time in 1936.  It wasn't so good for its time in 2002.
• Freaky Friday.  Did it need an update?  Maybe, but it had already been redone in so many ways. 
• The Parent Trap.  Disney does this to get new viewers, but I think they had a strong story the first  time.
• The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.  In the first one leatherface runs around with a chainsaw, as opposed to the new one where leatherface runs around with a chainsaw.
• I Spit On Your Grave.  Roger Ebert refused to give it any stars the first time around.  Why remake it?  I don't know.  Might as well remake Plan 9 From outerspace. 

Here are some remakes I liked:

• The Man who Knew Too Much.  Did you know Hitch made this film twice?  Of course,  I think we are more patient when the director himself is remaking his own work. 
• Carrie.  This was a solid film that brought Carrie into  the modern age.  And it deserves to be moved up, since the story itself is pretty ageless.
• The Shining miniseries.  Not a Kubrick remake at all, it actually went back to the book.  I liked it.
• The Ten Commandments.  It was a silent film first.  Now I understand remaking films so they have sound!  And why doesn't someone put the words at the bottom of the screen  on silent films instead of blacking out the entire screen?  We can do it with subtitles now.
• Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  Which was also a silent film first. 
• Superman.  I like them all.  Really.  Even Superman Returns, which had lots of openings for sequels.
• Spiderman.  I think the term is "reboot" these days, but it sure feels like a remake.  Anyway, I like it each time it comes around.
• Cheaper by the Dozen was a lot more fun than the first go-round.   Though, it was far from the book the second time!
• King Kong remake was fun in 2005.  Long, but I liked it that they went back to the 30's.  The 1976 version was just boring.  In that version, Kong climbed the world  trade tower.
• Red Dragon was originally put to screen in the form of "Manhunter."  Then when Harris got super famous, they remade it --  and this time it was scary!
• Father of the Bride.  I like the remake with Steve  Martin better.
• The Time Machine.  Two very different movies, as the updated version made some pretty radical new turns.  Our family likes both incarnations.

What I notice going through remakes is that a lot of horror movies get  remade.  I'm not sure why. How many times have we done Frankenstein and Dracula?

By the way, I didn't know until today that Don Knotts The Shakiest Gun In The West was a remake of Paleface. 

What remakes do you like, and which ones do you hate?
Here's a list: wikipedia.org

Rebooting Good Movies

I was watching Pet Sematary last night when I saw Lilja's Library post news that the reboot was underway again.  I saw the Carrie reboot last week, and liked it a lot.  Variety notes that the original was a hit, bringing in $57 million on only a $11 million budget!  So  my reaction to a reboot is a simple "why?"

Unlike Carrie, which was pretty rooted in the 70's -- Pet Sematary holds up today.

Shortlist.com suggests that the reason the film is being remade is because  the original didn't "capitalize" on their own great idea.  They then dig up the used suggestion that they aren't remaking the movie, but going back to the book.  Now we heard this with Carrie.  I liked Carrie, it was most certainly a remake of DePalma's film -- not a return tot he book.  The ending alone was a play on the original that had nothing to do with the book.  It was an update of DePalma's film, not a return to the world of Stephen King.

Also, in the new Carrie film we had Margaret White crucified with household objects.  Did this idea come from DePalma or King?  Well, give Carrie a quick read and you'll discover that indeed a DePalma remake was in the works, not a return to Stephen King's CARRIE.  From wikipedia:

"Carrie returns home and confronts a crazed Margaret, who claims she conceived Carrie due to marital rape. When Margaret stabs Carrie, she kills her mother by telekinetically stopping her heart."

Now is that what happened in the recent "more faithful" adaptation of Carrie?  No!  They went with the more dramatic DePalma ending.  Which is fine, but why pretend it was a return to the book when it was clearly not?

So, I have this feeling -- where we go again.  Same jabber offered up for another remake, which is this time truly unnecessary.

The other reason offered for remaking Pet Sematary is that it wasn't very scary.  I guess that's a matter of taste.  I thought it was dark, creepy, faithful to the book and scary.

What's the real reason for all the remakes?  Fear of trying new things.  Investors don't want to put money into a risky new project, but would rather try and resell things they've already done.  It's like Van Gogh trying to repaint Starry Night.

If money is being poured in Stephen King projects, why doesn't someone take on Duma Key, Rose Madder or From a Buick 8.  And if we just have to remake Stephen King films, how about making a real adaptation of Needful Things.  Now there's a book that would make a good mini-series.

And, how about this; instead of giving us another movie version of Pet Sematary, give us the book on audio.  How about that.

Cujo and The Shining Back To Hollywood

photo credit: www.liljas-library.com

Today the Hollywood Reporter posted that Glen Mazzara is "in negotiations to pen the screenplay" to a project called "Overlook Hotel."  The story will serve as a prequel to The Shining.  This was actually hard for me to imagine until I read Stephen King's original opening to The Shining called "Before The Play."  An edited version appeared in TV guide.  (talkstephenking.blogspot. before the play)

My favorite website, Lilja's Library, posted this news:

SUNN CLASSIC ANNOUNCES CUJO FOR 2013
Lang Elliott, President & CEO of Sunn Classic Pictures, Inc., announced that Sunn plans to produce the remake of “CUJO” this year representing the 30th Anniversary since Sunn produced and distributed the original “CUJO” motion picture in l983, based upon Stephen King’s novel. The l983 version was highly successful at the worldwide box-office and, compared with today’s inflation and higher ticket prices, the box-office would be well over $225 million even without ancillary sales (i.e., DVD, cable, free television, pay-per-view, etc.).

Of course, the big question is -- why?  Cujo was a good book, and a better movie.  Could a remake be better  than the original?  Carrie could justify a remake because the original deviated so far from the book -- though it was great.  But Cujo actually made the story better!  If Sunn wants to drop money on a Stephen King project, how about CELL, The Sun Dog, From a Buick 8. Or how about a remake of The Runningman.

King films that need a remake:

• The Runningman
• Langoliers
• Desperation
• Needful Things (mini-series please)
• IT
• Firestarter
• Dreamcatcher

Some projects you hope will just go away. . . like Children of the Corn.  

What King movies would you like to see remade?

King Movies The Constant Reader Wants

There is a sludge of remake talk buzzing through Hollywood.  Most of it will probably come to not.  Carrie seems to be a definate "go."  Others, pet Semetery, The Stnad, IT are all a little more questionable. 

By the way, I really liked the TV Carrie remake. 

This leads to two thoughts: What movies would the constant reader like to see?  Second, when should Hollywood consider dropping money on a remake?

First, what should constitute a remake?  Two things:

1. The original was so bad, it just has to be done again. 
But, what we see instead is Hollywood going to old money makers that were great, and seeking to remake them.  What int hew orld is wrong with Carrie or the original Pet semetery? 

Now, when it comes to IT, the mini-series was lacking.  Namely, it was lacking in. . . well, everything.  Tim Curry and the kids were good, and that was about it.  Some would suggest The Stand did not represent the heart of the novel, but I think the mini-series was a fine piece of storytelling.

For the most part, movies we'd like to see redone never will be because the original ruined the market!

Some movies that might do well with a remake:

• Dreamcatcher.  Somewhere along the way this movie stops being fun and just gets a little -- out there.  The special effects were pretty bad, too.
• Hearts in Atlantis.  How about a little more of the book, even if it requires a trilogy.
• Christine.  I like the original -- but I think it could probably be done even better with new technology. 
• Needful Things.  This would be a great mini-series.
• Salem's Lot.  I know it's already been done twice . . . and maybe the third time will be the charm, eh.
• Firestarter.  I know, it was a big budget film.  But King was right -- it didn't work.  I don't think he ever asked for a remake, but it's such a good story!  I think it could be better translated to film.

2. Stephen King thinks it should be remade. 
That's a good reason to remake a movie -- if the author thinks it did not live up to his expectations. 

This was the case with The Shining.  Did I like the Kubrick version?  Sure!  But, honestly, King was right -- it wasn't his novel.  It was his characters, but the novel took such drastically different paths that it seemed fair for King to ask to make a movie more faithful to his story.  What do we think of the remake?  Well, I don't know any fans.  A little . . . well, short on horror and long on yawns would be my off the cuff remark. 


Second, what movies would we like to see put to screen?

Well, y'all are welcome to give your input, I do not intend to speak for everyone else.  Just my opinion.  Which is this: Anything not put to screen already is of some itnerest to me!  So, if it's a King story -- I'm down with it.

Here are some I'd really like to see:

Image credit HERE

1. The Dark Tower.
2. 11.22.63
3. Under The Dome.
4. The Eyes of the Dragon. 
5. The Talisman & Black House.  (And whatever the third novel is going to be.)
6. From a Buick 8
7. Duma Key
8. Blockade Billy.  I know, not much to work with there, but it could be episode of another 4 parter like Creepshow.  Actually, a Creepshow 3 would be a lot of fun!
9. Gerald's Game.  I know, it's impossible because of the nudity and S&M stuff.  But find a way to cloth her, and it's a mainstream horror flick.
10. Rose Madder.  I haven't read the book yet -- but I'd pay the moolah to watch the movie.

Here are some movies that don't get enough credit:

• The Tommyknockers was actually a pretty good miniseries, in my opinion.
• The Dark Half.  This is a great film!  Scary, dark and a little nuts. 
• Secret Window.  I think the movie, while not riviting, fixed a few things that the King story left hanging.  (It was, after all, only a novella.)  I never like stories where it all turns out to be in someone's head.  Either they're crazy or dreaming or having visions.  So I liked the theme that two guys could write the very same story. . . but it all goes to mush after that as our main character go's to the funny farm.
• Graveyard Shift.  So it's not a master piece -- and it's not that scary -- I still like it for some reason.  So there.
• Maximum Overdrive.  It's a movie directed by Stephen King. . . what more need be said!?  Okay, it's not a great movie, but it's by Stephen King!  And, if you suspend reality, lower expectations and just watch the hting, you'll have a very nice time.
• The Night Flier.  This movie is wonderful!  The tone, the story itself -- I think it's just great.
• Silver Bullet was a pretty good movie.  The monster at the end was a little -- unscary -- but the story was great.
• Riding the Bullet.  It's depressing and dark and a lot of fun.  Wish my copy worked!
• Cat's Eye.  I think that King viewers never understood the cat thing, and thus they throw the movie out with the kitty.  I really liked The Ledge.  Feels like something from Alfred Hitchcock Presents.

And, finally, movies and remakes I would be okay doing without:

* Insomnia.  I get sleepy thinking about it.
* Sleepwalkers.  Please, Hollywood people, show kindness to the King fans!  We have to buy EVERY move, and making us buy this one again would just be wrong.
* Children of the Corn.  We've had enough!  Well, I had enough after the first one.  Are we on #45 yet?
* Golden years.  I watched it. . . I still don't get it. . . I don't want to watch it again.
* Sometimes They Come Back, again and again and again.  I enjoyed the movie, but no more, please.  Stop coming back!
* The Runningman.  You know someone will suggest this because of the Hunger Games doing so well.  Please resist the urge!
* The Langoliers.  Never again, please, never again!  I loved the book, but the mini-series destroyed it for me.  But, HERE is a pretty good review of the Langoliers!

Carrie News

Picture Credit: HERE

Carrie certainly is a popular story!  A couple of items concerning Carrie:

MUSICAL

Broadway world has announced that the musical Carrie will not fulfill it's announced extension.  That means it will close April 8.

The directors are quoted as saying:

“MCC, the authors, and the director achieved what we all set out to do – to rescue Carrie from oblivion and to give her new life. Plans are underway to preserve this production for Lincoln Center Library for the Performing Arts, so it may live on in the memories of the thousands of theatergoers who saw and loved it.”  (Full story HERE)

Hold on!  What are they talking about?  "Rescue Carrie from oblivion"?  All that work was simply about rescuing the old musical?  This was to save face?  Surely not!  It seems like they're closing up shop and saying, "Well, we did better than last time.  Yeah. . . YEAH!  In fact, we saved the previous musical.  And, come to think of it, that's what we intended to do all along."

REMAKE:

Now. . . on to the Carrie remake.  Claude Brodesser-Akner posted an article at Vulture.com titled: "We hear the top candidates for the Carrie remake are. . ."

• Chloë Moretz (15) and Haley Bennett (24).  Now hold on. . . so one of these ladies is 15, and the other is 24. Meaning they'll be at least 16 and 25 when filming starts.  Can you imagine a 25 year old Carrie?
• For the part of Carrie's crazy mama, Julianne Moore is being considered.
• The film will be directed by Kimberly Peirce.

So why make a remake of an already great film?  Got me!  I dunno.  Why not remake Salem's Lot or Fire-Starter.  Dread Central offers this explanation:

Uncle Creepy over at Dread Central offers this explanation: “The script for this latest reboot has been written by Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, whose rewrite work helped save Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark on Broadway. Aguirre-Sacasa set out to write a version of Carrie that is more faithful to the King book and more grounded than the Brian De Palma-directed original film.”

Remakes Worth Considering

It's an era of remakes.  Talk of remaking movies like Pet Sematary makes fans scratch their heads -- what was wrong with the original?  Same with Carrie; though I do whole-heartedly embrace the TV version.  Why did they remake Salem's Lot?  And please, please, please Hollywood -- stop giving us Children Of The Corn remakes, sequels or any other media.  The Children of the Corn is DOA by now! 

If someone wants to remake King films, I have a few suggestions! 

How about remaking Dolores Claiborne? The book was awesome; the movie stunk!  There's a simple reason for the movie's downfall -- they deeply changed King's story.  It worked the way it was written!  Told in Dolores' voice, she moved naturally from past to present.  The addition of her adult daughter was not helpful to the story's flow.

Needful Things was just disastrous!  And I went into it with high hopes.  I had fallen head over heels in love with the novel, buying each segment of the audio tapes with my 18th birthday money.  (They released it in three parts to make purchasing more bearable!)  I loved it all!  The women killing each other in the middle of the street; Radar; Polly and her arthritis; the Sheriff and his shadow puppets; Buster and his race horses; the boy who takes his own life; the woman in love with Elvis -- all of that was wonderful!

The real engine in the book was the Sheriff's past.  What happened to his wife?  The novel becomes his own war with the devil.  I had no idea King was writing about the 1980's and our desire to buy everything!  To me, it was just a big, awesome brilliant novel.

But the movie lost most of that.  Needful Things the movie started well, but failed to maintain the intensity that King's novel did.  Instead of ending with a fight with the devil, it concludes with a sermon.  This one needs a little room to breath.  I don't know why it was never optioned as a mini-series, but I think it would work nicely.  The plot drives it hard, even when King spends time focusing on characters.

Oh, how about Dreamcatcher ?  Again, loved the beginning -- but I always lose interest in the movie midway through.  Desperation falls in the same boat for me.  It started good, but I just can't stay connected.  I did like the novel, but something doesn't feel right on screen.

The Langoliers was bad from the start.  Awkward acting, bad spacial effects and way too much screen time makes the movie a big yawn.  In fact, it's laughably bad.
Firestarter was a big budget movie, big names and followed the book to the T.  But still, something was very empty in that movie.  I don't know what!  I just know that the film isn't as much fun as it ought to be.

IT deserves a remake.  I look forward to the upcoming movie, because I think that the mini-series dropped the ball in many areas.  Special effects were bad.  The only adult that really carried the movie was Tim Curry.  The kids were great, I mean absolutely fantastic.  But all of the adult scenes were embarrassing!

Oh, this one is good. . . The Running Man!  Now that was an awesome book!  It was not an awesome movie.  In fact, other than the title and the game show, I'm not really sure what the movie had in common with the book.

Some King films weren't good, but there's no point in remaking them because the source material never really warranted a feature film!  Take for instance, Silver Bullet.  It started out as a calender, turned into a novella.  It's a fun read, and I even like the movie a bit, but I do wonder if the book had been written by anyone else, would it have become a movie?  Same with The Lawnmower Man -- though that can of worms oughta be left unopened! 

There are some King movies that had no source material, since they were made for the screen.  While Storm Of The Century was a home run, I'm speechless at Sleepwalkers.  Just speechless.  Can only say, "Please, no remakes!"

Now, some movies I just wish they would remake parts of them.  The end of the Mist for instance!  Some fans loved it.  I know from his review that Lilja thought it was great, and King gave it his blessing.  But it leaves my heart throbbing every time I watch that thing.

Remake we really don't need: Carrie, The Stand (but I'll be the first in line) and Pet Sematary.  As the old man said, if it ain't broke. . .

I think when the movie adaptation is really good, it changes how you read the book!  You fall more in love with the book having seen it on film.  When a movie doesn't work, you think, "At least I still have the book."

Pet Sematary Remake Still In The Works

The Hollywood Reporter has a short article stating that Lorenzo di Bonaventura has signed a three year deal to remain at Paramount -- where he's been for the last 10 years.  He has helmed G.I. Joe and was one of several producers for Transformers, Dark of the Moon. 

So what will Bonaventura be working on?  THR says one of his projects will be "a remake of Stephen King's Pet Sematary."  That, and G.I. Joe 2: Retaliation.

Carrie Fun To Cast

Stephen King recently said that though he doesn't see the reason for a new Carrie movie, it would be "fun to cast."  His suggestion for Carrie White -- how about Lindsay Lohan?  (I assume he's wanting her to play Carrie.  She seems more like Sue Snell to me).

Freakingnews.com has another suggestion. . . Britney.  Once again, I must say that Carrie has way too much class for Britney, either.

http://www.freakingnews.com/Britney-Carrie-by-Stephen-King-Pictures-39004.asp

King Talks To EW About CARRIE Remake

EW has a great quote from King about news of the Carrie remake.  Like all of us, I think he's left scratching his head as to why such a project is necessary.  In fact, he says the movie was better than the book! 

King says, “I’ve heard rumblings about a Carrie remake, as I have about The Stand and It. Who knows if it will happen? The real question is why, when the original was so good? I mean, not Casablanca, or anything, but a really good horror-suspense film, much better than the book. Piper Laurie really got her teeth into the bad-mom thing."

And then there's this wonderful gem: "Although Lindsay Lohan as Carrie White… hmmm. It would certainly be fun to cast.”


http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/05/20/stephen-king-carrie-remake/

It's Carrie -- Again

Remember at the end of Carrie a hand reached up from the grave?  It was just a dream, right?  Well, maybe Carrie just isn't dead yet!

Hollywood Reporter offers this news: "MGM and Screen Gems are partnering up for the new take on the Stephen King book and have hired Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark playwright Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa to pen the new script."

Of course, Carrie was brought to screen in 1979.  Then there was Rage, Carrie 2.  Then there was the Carrie miniseries, which I liked a lot.  But, in case the story hasn't already been told. . . why not!  Another carrie.  Great. 

So, it scores up like this:

                       Carrie: 4               Dark Tower: 0

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/

Pontificating Remakes

picture: http://www.movieline.com/2011/03/dear-hollywood-here-are-5-remakes-of-stephen-king-adaptations-you-should-fast-track.php

.

Brian Clark at movieline.com has an interesting article titled "5 Remakes of Bad Stephen King Adaptations That Should Get Fast Tracked ."

.

Each entry is given a short synopsis and reasons why it deserves a remake. Here's the big 5:

.

1. Children of the Corn. You've got to be kidding, Mr. Clark! Let it die. It might not be able to rest in peace, but at lest let it squirm in its nasty grave on the back aisle of the video store and the $5 barrel at Walmart.

.

2. The Night Flier.

.

3. Needful Things

Clark writes: "Max Von Sydow plays the devil , who opens up shop in (of course) a small town in Maine. With this casting and setup, I still don’t understand why this movie is so tame and dull, but it is! I’d accept either a straight-up comedy remake or a horrifying one, but the middle-ground that the original version treads is unacceptable."

.

I too would love to see a Needful Things remake. But, as always, one faithful to the book. Maybe a mini-series.

.

4. Pet Sematary. (Just in case the first one didn't do it for you.)

.

5. It

Clark's logic: "The original TV miniseries inspired weeks or even months of nightmares in small children thanks to Tim Curry’s terrifying portrayal of Pennywise, the shape-shifting, child-eating clown. Then the ending (spoiler alert) where he just turns out to be a stupid, giant spider out of a 50’s B-movie quickly ensured that all children could sleep soundly again. To actually make a faithful adaptation of the novel, this would probably work better as an HBO miniseries. Which would be great! But even if the studio could deliver something as slick as the first hour and a half of the original that doesn’t peter out at the end, It could become a potential horror classic. "

.

You know, I have to agree. All went well, until the end -- when the movie just petered out. But things I hear about the movie do not give me hope. Moving the time line up to the 80's -- not good! Forcing the whole story into a 2 hour feature movie, again, not good.

.

If I may ask, why keep remaking old movies that went dud in the night when there are some great books that haven't been touched? Bag of Bones, most things Bachman, Cell, From a Buick 8, Duma Key, Lisey's Story, Talisman, Under The Dome, Eyes of the Dragon, The Sun Dog, Insomnia.

.

http://www.movieline.com/2011/03/dear-hollywood-here-are-5-remakes-of-stephen-king-adaptations-you-should-fast-track.php

Arnold considers Running Man remake

Now that Jerry Brown has reclaimed his position as Governor of California, what is our friend Arnold up to? Well, he made a recent appearance at "The Arnold Seminar." I kid you not. thearnoldfans.com explains that each year Arnie comes out to take questions and inspire the crowd.

.

Asked what movie he might choose as his "comback film." Schwarzenegger said that studios are "desperate" to get him back on screen. He says he has at least 15 scripts awaiting him. So which one will he choose? (Please, please. . . don't be The Stand!) Arnie listed Terminator remake, Predator and The Running Man. He also said he is "packaging a Comic Book character." Arnold also announced he is at work on his autobiography.

http://www.thearnoldfans.com/news/1767.html

.

I think most King fans would agree with me when I say The Running Man deserves a remake. In fact, if we can -- we demand one! But not because Schwarzenegger needs more screen time. This film needs a remake because the movie never told the story Stephen King gave us. King had us on the edge of our seats! It was awesome. The movie. . . was. . . well, we'll just say it was not King's book.

.

In an article titled, "Ten Movies Actually Worth Remaking", the filmcritic staff explain why Running Man is worthy of a remake: "A remake, with more respect for the source material and an eye on plausible conjecture rather than cartoonish posturing, could make a masterful addition to the sci-fi canon." http://www.filmcritic.com/features/2009/06/ten-movies-actually-worth-remaking/

.

So, in short:

Remake: YES!
Arnie: Unnecessary.

A Different Take On Maximum Overdrive

I like Maximum Overdrive... a lot. I also liked Aaron Tellock's take on the upcoming remakes of Firestarter and Maximum Overdrive.
.
His assessment of Max. Overdrive: "Maximum Overdrive” drew some initial attention because Stephen King was directing the flick, poor acting and some comically horrific kill scenes put a quick taint on the film’s success."
.
And now for the part I really like. . . Tellock says: "My DVD recommendation for today is “Maximum Overdrive” (1986). A story of a group of people who try to survive when machines start to come alive and become homicidal as told by one of the masters of horror himself, Mr. Stephen King. It’s kind of like “Transformers” without having to put up with Megan Fox. Enjoy."
.
transformers without Megan Fox. NICE!
.
http://www.examiner.com/horror-movies-in-milwaukee/king-remakes-include-firestarter-and-maximum-overdrive

Firestarter Remake and more

photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/angeliquexo/4107714393/sizes/z/in/photostream/

.

File this under "here we go again." I saw today at Liljas Library that there are plans to remake Maximum Overdrive.

.

I also spotted this headline at variety.com, "U, De Laurentiis to reignite 'Fire starter'." Great.

.

Here's a snippet from the variety article:

.

'Firestarter' has a great mythology and with Martha and Lorenzo's vision we believe the franchise can be extended in a new and exciting direction," said Debbie Liebling, U's prexy of production.

.
De Laurentiis Co. has a slew of projects in various stages of development, including a reboot of the cult classic "Barbarella," a remake of another King adaptation, "Maximum Overdrive" and a new spin on 1980s TV actioner "MacGyver."
.

Smith is now working on the "Firestarter" script. U hopes to get the pic into production next year, but has yet to take the project out to directors.

.
Besides the 1984 pic, cabler Syfy fielded a telepic in 2002 dubbed "Firestarter 2: Rekindled."

.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118028978?refCatId=13

.

I just can't wait.

.

Actually, could someone make remakes we actually want. Maybe a mini-series of Needful Things, or a remake of Dolores Claiborne? Or how about someone make one of the novels that's still quietly waiting some screen time -- Lisey's Story, UTD, Cell (please!), From A Buick 8, Bag of Bones?