I mean, the pet cemetery/"Sematary" doesn't really have anything to do with the drama. That plot of land is passive and inert.
It's the Micmac Indian cemetery which is the real villain, here, isn't it? And that was a long walk away, and completely independent from, the Pet Semetary.
It would be like taking The Stand, and calling it The Free Zone Committee. Or The Langoliers, and calling it Runway.
I never finished the film, but i had this thought in mind too. I suppose there may be a good reason, probably should have finished it.
"Convoy? Michael, you are hanging around with a man who uses a collective term for a single vehicle."
I always kind of thought the title was odd too. But perhaps its titled this way because its basically the lost pets that 'bring' the Creed family to the evil.
Its what lures them to it, starts it for them, so to speak.
"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus."
"Didn't he discover America?"
"Penfold, shush."
The Pet Semetary is essentially the gateway to the Micmac burial grounds. Once the Creed family visits, the evil there is aware of their presence.
shareYeah, but how far back do we go up the chain of responsibility/accountability/guilt?
The highway is what brings the trucks which kill the pets, which is what leads people to the Pet Sematary, which is what lures people to the Micmac cemetery.
It is the fuel stations which fuel those trucks.
It is the truck dealerships which sell those trucks to the delivery/construction companies and/or owner-operators.
It is the factories which build those trucks for the dealerships.
It is the contractor subcomponent assembly plants which build the components which the factories use to construct the trucks.
It is the grocery stores and the restaurants which feed the assembly workers.
It is the ranches and the farms which supply the stores and the eateries.
Maybe there is a cursed ranch/farm right next to the burial ground. That would bring us full circle!
[deleted]
Hahaha Oh, that's wrong, but really funny.
shareThe title represents the naivety of death.
It's not written the way it's supposed to be, it's written the way a child would, misspelled. This connects back to Louis's unwillingness to let anything go. He views death the way a child would, that it's not fair.
The title is somewhat ironic since the reader knows that the story is not about a pet cemetary, so the title is as wrong as the spelling of it.
However, the pet cemetary is not at all unimportant for the story since it's the first time the family visits the "Pet Sematary" that marks the turning point. Remember that on the very first visit the family (Ellie, I think) notices the deadwood. Ellie is also the one who first notices the path that leads to the pet cemetary (and what lies beyond...). And it is the death of Ellie's cat that causes Jud to lead Louis to the burial ground. And it's Ellie's dream that sends Rachel back to Ludlow.
So how about "Ellie" as a book title? (Just kidding...)
Or how about
"Children Know Things"
or
"Don't Listen to Ellie!"
Apparently someone - most likely The Publisher or The Studio - decided that Pet Sematary was a more 'commercially viable' title than Micmac Indian Cemetery.
Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds
How about "Dead Reds"?
shareNo offence mate, but this is probably why you are not a writer (or in publishing).
Try this: which book would you walk away with if you could only choose between two, one called "Micmac Indian Cemetery", and the other with a MISSPELLED title "Pet Sematary"?
In the real world all books (and films and so on) have to compete ferociously with one another in grabbing this potential consumer's attention.
Anyone who was familiar with King at all would likely have instinctively drawn some associations to Cujo. And hence, if you liked that book, there's a good chance that you might like this book as well.
If it says pets on the tin, it's pretty suggestive that that thin probably contains one if not more pets inside it, too... In other words there's a mighty good chance that there's some pet involved in all of this and - knowing Mr. King's affinity for horror - it has likely something to do with a cemetery of some sort. And indeed it does. But not just one...
"Pet Sematary" has to be one of the most eye-catching titles one could come up with. I suppose it's entirely possible that this title was even suggested to Mr. King. Either way, a damn good title. And a title that doesn't give away too much without spoiling it.
I actually remember having written a multiple pages piece about this movie/book for an English class assignment some 20 years ago. Every single word that read "sematary" had been crossed over with a red ink.
I didn't have the heart to point her that that was the actual title of the book. :) It still cracks me up. She was really something. An instant novel-worthy kooky character who may not ever have set foot in an English-speaking country for all we knew.
So, while I do not have that many memories from my high school days, and I may not have learned any better command of the English language in her classes in any case, I'm still glad I took that assignment with me to write at home - and that I wrote it the way I did. If memory serves me right I "reviewed" King's book based solely on seeing this movie version of it. Guilty as charged.
I actually have conducted research for a publisher, although I am not a writer, per sé.
Still, I do not appreciate misleading book titles any more than I appreciate misleading cover art. That both are common practices for the industry doesn't make them right. It only makes them regular.
You ask me which book title would I walk away from, between the two? Well, for starters, I'll tell you which one I already walked away from, and that's the one that actually got slapped on the book: "Pet Sematary". I never bothered to read the story. And now that I've finally watched the entire movie through to the end, I feel a little cheated by that title, so I don't think I will ever bother to read it.
"Micmac Indian Cemetery" sounds blah, for sure. But at the same time, it would still make me wonder, "WTH is a Micmac?!" So I'd be far more likely to check out a nonfiction work on that than I am to check out a Stephen King book with a cutesy, deliberate misspelling.
That is especially so, now that I know that that title is not what the story is really all about, anyway.
Good job man. Like I said I didn't mean to any way offend you. I just found your logic surprising.
I stopped reading King in my early twenties but that's not saying he wouldn't be sometimes stellar, sometimes just ok and other times incredibly bland and repetitive at what he does. It's just that there are so many other books I'd read (if only I had enough time) before continue with King's stories. These days I'm almost exclusively a non-fiction reader.
If you don't like to read horror - or just King - I think it's safe to say that any title then would have been wasted on you. Yet you took the time to see this film. Again, I have slight trouble understanding your logic.
If I saw a title "Micmac Indian Cemetery" I'd assume it has something to do with Micmac indians and the way they buried their deceased. :) But if instead I'd see a title "Pet Sematary", I'd be "WTF, that's not how you spell it!" - and I'd stop and maybe peak inside just to see if the author/publisher really is that retarded. And soon enough I'd be proven wrong and I just might walk away with that title in my hand. That's called a sale. :)
There's always a chance that one reveals too much of any given story by coming up with a title that's just too self-evident (case: Planet of the Apes). You want to attract enough attention without giving away the essence of it. It's the opposite of easy. It is actually quite difficult.
As others have here already pointed out, that cutesy spelling is there for a reason.
Me, I can easily live with misleading titles and cover art. That don't bother me half as much as the sad reality where people who obviously haven't seen a movie or heard a record still write a synopsis/summary of what they THINK it likely is about. Those people should get some quality jail time. That's like raping a person's creative output (that she might have put years of hard work in to) just because these lazy bums need money for food. My advice for such people is: go mop floors where you'll do less damage.
stupidus,
You thought my logic was flawed because I said I would walk away from the book with a misleading cutesy title, even though I went ahead and watched the film.
But I was willing to try the film first because it's a SHORT visual escape. To whatever extent the silly title annoyed, at least the whole experience would be over in short order.
Not so much with any book. I'm a fairly slow reader, so I'm very reluctant to get started on just any old book. Cutesy titles are red flags to me. They reek of trying too hard compensate for some internal flaws.
Now that I KNOW that the title was a red herring, I'm especially unlikely to read the written version. I just don't like that kind of trickery.
But at the same time, it would still make me wonder, "WTH is a Micmac?!"
Danzig,
No, I was not saying that I could not figure out that a book entitled Micmac Indian Cemetery would entail Micmac Indians. What kind of Indian is a Micmac Indian? I had never heard of that before this movie.
And I certainly wasn't saying that I couldn't string together clever posts.
But you are still welcome, though.
Actually it's "Mi'kmaq". It's an actual tribe of Indians that reside in the Maine area where this movie was filmed and the novel based on..although their tribe spreads far into Canada. But to be fair Micmac is an alternate spelling for reasons that I don't recall. Read up on them..Very interesting culture and history.
Perhaps you should conduct some research into Marketing, then you might start to understand these concepts that confuse you so much.
In most SK novels the title is a HUGE hint as to the origin of the evil in the story ; Pet Sematary , The Mist, The Tommyknockers...are you seeing a pattern here? You're an idiot if you don't, cowboy.
mickmaxy,
The Pet Sematary defies that pattern though. It isn't the source of evil. It's just an inert plot of land where animal cadavers lay. The source of evil is the Indian Burial Ground, which is a long walk away from the Pet Sematary. (Some have said that the real source of evil was a Wendigo demon.) So your reference and this title are actually a case of apples and oranges.
This title is both mispelled and illogical.
You're an idiot if you don't see that.
It would be like calling The Mist "Tha Wynd", or The Tommyknockers "Tha Hardwhere Supplize". Deliberate mispelling and not a hint to the real antagonist of the story at all.
I've read the book, there is a Wendigo but it is not the source of the 'evil'. The Pet Sematary and the dead fall are supposed to act as a barrier to prevent people from using the old MicMac burial ground.
In short, the title of the movie is correct and you talk out of your backside.
It's all a deep end.