just do another version of the book, this film is awesome, it just cuts things from the book out
A naked American man stole my baloons
As has every film that has ever been made from a book. It's the nature of the differences in the artforms.
Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds
I know, this film is a classic.
Face book http://www.facebook.com/lynn.ann.9
It's being remade to appeal to a younger generation of cell phone addicted teenagers who want to see a horror film with gore, CGI and everything they're used to. At least, that's the way it is in my high school. They don't appreciate the obscure and eerie tone and great acting of the 1980's Pet Sematary and they want a remake that was made in the digital age. It's sad, but that's the way it goes these days. It isn't being remade to follow the book more closely. It's being remade to get more money from new viewers who never bothered to watch the original or who were disappointed by it. :(
"The 21st century is all flash but no substance." ~ Smog City
Hey Gasmask, a new movie would NOT be a "remake" of the earlier film, it is rather a separate new adaptation of the book and would have nothing to do with the earlier film.
A remake is only when it's based on a motion picture produced earlier and an original screenplay not based on any existing source material (books, novellas and comics/graphic novels) like say Halloween or The Blob which are TRUE remakes in every sense of word.
"Let off some steam bennet"-Commando.
I'm not the one who first called it a remake. That was whoever started this post in the first place. I see what you're saying, but in this day and age an adaptation of a book can really bomb, even if it's trying to stay more close to the book. Despite my words though, I'll probably be one of the first in line at the theater if any Stephen King books get new adaptations. I love Stephen King books.
"The 21st century is all flash but no substance." ~ Smog City
"remake is only when it's based on a motion picture produced earlier and an original screenplay not based on any existing source material (books, novellas and comics/graphic novels) like say Halloween or The Blob which are TRUE remakes in every sense of word."
You've forgotten "John Carpenter's The Thing", which was based on the titular film from the 50s which was based on a story called "Who Goes There?".
First of all remakes equalls money. Or at least Hollywood think it does as every remake of classic movies so far has bombed at the box office. Especially the latest attempt at Ghostbusters.
Another version of the book??? It's a horror classic written by Stephen King and loved by horror fans. And he owns the rights. Classic novels are not rewritten. Are you high or something??
"First of all remakes equalls money. Or at least Hollywood think it does as every remake of classic movies so far has bombed at the box office. Especially the latest attempt at Ghostbusters."
Remakes are nothing new, dude. It's been going on since the 1920s/30s. The issue isn't the question of something being remade, it's the question of whether or not the film being remade will be good.
"Another version of the book??? It's a horror classic written by Stephen King and loved by horror fans. And he owns the rights. Classic novels are not rewritten. Are you high or something??"
I think he meant that another version of the movie should be made that better reflected the book than the piece of #hit that we ended up with.