http://liljas-library.com/article.php?id=4844
Let's hope we don't get another silly character in the form of Pascow and I hope we see less of Gage after his resurrection. The original plays out like a Chucky movie in parts.
One of few aspects that ruins the original is the casting of Dale Midkiff and Denise Crosby. It didn't work so I have my fingers crossed that they will make the right choice this time.
It's all a deep end.
I hope the Wendigo is included.
shareI think Ron Perlman would be great as Judd. Any idea in terms of who the director is, let alone have any suggestions for a possible director? I think Larry Fessenden would be a good candidate.
shareWhy remake it at all?
shareBecause the 1989 movie did an awful job of adapting the source material, omitting several key details and fundamentally changing what the story was about.
shareHow about a prequel?
shareA remake would be better, one that properly reflects the book.
share------^ this
Because the 1989 movie did an awful job of adapting the source material, omitting several key details and fundamentally changing what the story was about.------^ and this
Stephen King wrote the screenplay for the original
share"Stephen King wrote the screenplay for the original"
He did, but he wasn't the one who directed it and made changes to it. The original draft by King was very much like the novel - it even had the Wendigo, but for some reason the director, Mary Lambert, decided to axe that altogether.
money....
shareIt should never be brought back! What if it comes back...different?!
Also, they'll never be able to get another Zelda
The link posted above gives director details.
shareProbably a good film choice for a remake. The story and film are very well known, but having just re watched the movie for the first time in years i would say it desperately needs updating. Apart from Fred Gwynne (judd) the film is actually absolutely awful. Yes i remember loving it as a kid but the quality is terrible, the acting rubbish, the whole film feels pretty hollow. Its just a few set pieces tied together with string. But the story is excellent there is plenty to play with that for sure, could make a brilliant movie.
I agree. Fred Gwynne was the only part of the movie I remember fondly. It was a one time watch at a point in my life when I read all things King at least twice and watched horror movies as much as I could and multiple times for many.
shareWhile I agree that at least Denice Crosby was wrong as Rachel Creed, Pascow is a character from the book and extremely well played by the actor. So it's unlikely that he will not be in a remake. The same goes for Gage. Also extremely well played by Miko Hughes. Calling them silly characters clearly suggests you haven't read the book.
"Calling them silly characters clearly suggests you haven't read the book."
No, it's just the way the characters were portrayed and executed onscreen in comparison to how they were in the novel was lackluster.
>Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (28 Weeks Later) on board to direct a script he wrote with Jeff Buhler.
Sounds horrible :/
Why didn't they put Guillermo del Toro on it? He really wanted to make it and I think he'd be great for it. inb4 they make this a PG-13 crapfest, too.
"Why didn't they put Guillermo del Toro on it? He really wanted to make it and I think he'd be great for it. inb4 they make this a PG-13 crapfest, too."
It shouldn't matter what the rating for a movie is, what should matter is the movie's quality. If it's a good movie and it's rated R, awesome! If it's a good movie and it's rated PG-13, awesome! If it's #hit regardless of rating, tear into it.
It does matter what this movie's rating is when you consider the book's subject matter. A true translation of the book to film-form sure as hell is not PG-13.
share[deleted]
"It does matter what this movie's rating is when you consider the book's subject matter. A true translation of the book to film-form sure as hell is not PG-13."
Even if it's PG-13, that in no way guarantees that it's going to be a bad movie. "Jaws" was PG-13 back in the day - still is now. There's nothing mystical about an R rating.
"I've never seen a good horror film rates pg13."
I can name several. "Jaws", "1408", "The Ring", "The Birds", "Stephen King's "It", "Insidious", etc. Hell, even "Curse of the Demon", the 1963 version of "The Haunting", the 1954 "Godzilla" and "Shin Godzilla" are terrific and terrifying films.
I disagree. As I said, a true adaptation of the book's subject matter does not translate to PG13.
share"As I said, a true adaptation of the book's subject matter does not translate to PG13."
That's being presumptuous. Again, the concern shouldn't be rating, it should be quality, first and foremost. There's nothing divine or mystical about an R-rating - there are just as many bad R-rated movies as there are bad PG-13 flicks. If it's PG-13 and is a good, if not a great movie, awesome! If it's rated R and is a good/great movie, awesome! If it's one or the other and is a downright terrible movie, that's when you should tear it apart. As I had already noted before, there are tons of PG-13 movies that are really, really good, so it's not impossible.
>That's being presumptuous
No it's not. Again, a true adaptation of the scenes in the book does not translate to PG13. As an example, Victor Pascow is vividly described as gorily maimed from his accident and he has multiple appearances in the novel in this state. His description does not translate to a PG13 rating. If he is not shown on screen like this, then it is not a true adaptation of the book. That's only one example of what would result in a hard R rating from the book of which there are many.
"No it's not. Again, a true adaptation of the scenes in the book does not translate to PG13. As an example, Victor Pascow is vividly described as gorily maimed from his accident and he has multiple appearances in the novel in this state. His description does not translate to a PG13 rating."
In theory it could, especially considering movies such as "The Birds" and "Jurassic Park" were able to get away with a lot, including blood and gore, while still retaining the PG-13 rating.
Again, focus first and foremost should be "quality"; the original "Pet Sematary" movie was rated R, but that magically didn't stop it from being a bad movie now, did it?
>In theory it could
No it could not.
Haven't seen The Birds, but Jurassic Park hardly had any gore, and its subject matter is not anywhere near as morbid or dark as Pet Sematary. It's literally a mainstream summer hollywood blockbuster popcorn flick made for family viewing. It's absolutely retarded to compare it to a book like Pet Sematary. In fact this is a good example of the kind of movie I don't want to see Pet Sematary turned into.
>Again, focus first and foremost should be "quality"
Well no *beep* Just because a movie is rated R does not mean it's automatically good and I never said that so stop strawmanning. However, if you produce a true adaptation of the book, that simply does not translate to a rating of PG-13, but you can go ahead and continue arguing like an idiot if you like.
"Jurassic Park hardly had any gore"
It had dismembered limbs.
"It's literally a mainstream summer hollywood blockbuster popcorn flick made for family viewing. It's absolutely retarded to compare it to a book like Pet Sematary."
Not at all, for the original book itself was pretty gory in comparison, even much more so when compared to "Pet Sematary".
"Well no $hit. Just because a movie is rated R does not mean it's automatically good and I never said that so stop strawmanning."
There was a strong inference in your post that it being R would somehow magically rid it of whatever problems a PG-13 movie would have and would be better.
"However, if you produce a true adaptation of the book, that simply does not translate to a rating of PG-13,"
14A in some countries, or somewhere around about. The book wasn't an all-out gore-fest.
"Jaws" was PG-13 back in the day - still is now…”
JAWS was never rated PG-13. (There was no PG-13 in 1975.) The movie was released as PG, although I’d argue it could’ve easily been rated R. The producers fought hard to get a PG rating because they knew an R would significantly cut into the box office.