Originally Posted by Kilgore
No wonder today is considered the new golden age of television. It's the only place where original programming is available. It sure as hell isn't happening in the theaters.
First television is consider to be more now as the programming is getting better (the budgets are also getting bigger are they not). Twenty years ago we didn't have shows (or at least not as many) like Dexter, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones and similar. If you are having issues finding original cinema though I'm not sure what to say. There is a whole lot more original content out there then there are remakes. Also if original content is all you care about what are your opinions on doing a film based on a book to begin with, as it isn't wholly original either (I don't mean this in a mocking way, I actually am interested in how you view moving a story to a new medium changes it for you).
Originally Posted by Will2007
Good advice, but Kilgore's got a valid complaint. There are a limited number of films the big studios can green light in a given year, and pitching your movie to the studios means you are competing for limited resources with a bunch of others pitching theirs. In that sense, for every Carrie remake or remake of another classic, that is one less original film they could have made with those same limited resources.
Dollars are squeezing out good ideas in favor of tired but bankable ones.
Isn't Carrie an indie film? It studio is Fisher films which I have never heard of before? Maybe I am mistaken though as how a film is financed isn't of much interest to me.
Originally Posted by sdurani
I don't either, likening it more to a new conductor wanting to perform his version of a piece of music. When Stevie Wonder released 'We Can Work It Out'
, were people complaining "was there something wrong with the Beatles' version?" Or when Elvis released 'Blue Suede Shoes'
did listeners ask "was there something wrong with the Carl Perkins version?"
It's been 37 years since Stephen King's 1974 novel was brought to the screen. Certainly not 'too soon' for a fresh take on the material. And considering that I liked director Kimberly Peirce's previous two movies ('Boys Don't Cry'
), I'm really looking forward what she brings to the story. Plus, she has a really good cast (Chloë Grace Moretz, Julianne Moore) to work with.
Indeed, as long as a new identity is carved out and it isn't just a shoot for shoot remake (cough Psycho cough). To quote one of my favorite novelists John Lindqvist "I might just be the luckiest writer alive. To have not only one, but two excellent versions of my debut novel done for the screen feels unreal, 'Let the Right One In' is a great Swedish movie. 'Let Me In' is a great American movie", and in Stephen Kings on words on the remake Let Me In "The best American Horror film in the last 20 years". So I can't see how Stephen King could take an issue with re-adaptions, especially as Let Me In was not only based on the novel but the screenplay of the prior film Let The Right One In.
Originally Posted by Djoel
The girl playing Carrie is too cute to be a so call out cast, I don't get this and one of my biggest grips with this remake.
As long as the performance is strong this is a moot point, many people get ostracized and being 'cute' in high school may reduce the chances of such things, but it doesn't remove it entirely.