Here is the teaser trailer for Carrie from NYCC (not a bootleg)

(Video link) Right before New York Comic Con's Evil Dead panel (which I could not resist writing about first, because it's what I like to call "my jam") was the panel for the remake of Carrie, directed by Kimberly Peirce and starring Julianne Moore and Chloë Grace Moretz, all of whom were in attendance along with producer Kevin Bishop. I'd have to say that the audience was a little more resigned to a remake of Carrie than they were to Evil Dead (maybe because Carrie has been remade a couple of times already), but it didn't make the discussion any less entertaining.

While this is obviously the same story of Carrie White and the people who drove her to mass destruction, including her fanatical tyrant mother, this intends to be a fresh take on an old tale. For instance, there will be attention paid to cyberbullying, but it won't be the focus. The focus will be the demented, horrific mother-daughter relationship -- and maybe the mass amounts of blood. Peirce, in response to an audience question, estimated about 1,000 gallons of fake blood were used in her Carrie. Moretz, who was covered in it for days at a time, said that it "became something else," even part of the character she was playing. (Bishop was sure to let us know that "no pigs were harmed in the making of this movie.")

Peirce also made a point of mentioning that she referred to Stephen King's novel and not Brian De Palma's 1976 movie for source material; the latter was very supportive of the remake, but the former is notoriously hands-off when it comes to adaptations of his work.

Sony Pictures was kind enough to release the NYCC teaser yesterday, so we can see it in all of its bloody, flammable glory.

Another fun takeaway from the Carrie panel -- the White family phone number. Moretz says that if we call the number, 207-404-2604, you will hear from a member of the White family.

So, who else is going to re-read the book?


  1. I just don’t get the point of the what – third? – remake of the movie.  There was just one that came out a couple of years ago.  What will this one offer that the others haven’t?

    1. I was pondering the same question the other day about all the (whatever)man movies. It’s almost like these figures (Carrie, Bruce Wane, etc) are really so widely known and recognized that their mythos is part of our cultural heritage… maybe film making is like a very complex version of the oral tradtion in that sense… or maybe they just don’t want to gamble on anything remotely risky.

      Maybe modern folks just can’t sit through “old” looking media and the BPM has to be 220 and the volume up to 13 perpetually for them to pay attention. Generally, I think an updated look with a compromised script is usually all remakes offer on the whole.

    2. The second one was a sequel. And, one more time, I’ll point out that the fact that a book has already been adapted into a movie in no way, shape or form should discourage someone else from trying their own, if they think that they can do better–the movie version of The Wizard of Oz that everyone’s familiar with was preceded by several adaptations, and the classic movies of both Dracula and Frankenstein were similarly preceded by other adaptations. (In fact, Bram Stoker adapted his book for the theater and presented it–once–on stage before the book was published.) 

      In both the cases that I just listed and in the case of Carrie, there’s enough difference between the source material and the most famous movie version that room for further interpretations should be allowed. If you’ve read the Stephen King book, you know that significant differences exist. Whether or not this film will be better than the Brian DePalma version remains to be seen (it seems to have a bigger budget, at any rate), but I wouldn’t necessarily dismiss it out of hand. 

  2. I agree that Im somewhat ok about a remake of this. Overall I get annoyed and angry about remakes, sequels, prequels and reboots but for some reason this is ok. Even my fiance who went as Carrie to a costume party and loves the original is somewhat looking forward to it.

    Some movies feel like worthless remakes, some feel like stories handed down. HOPEFULLY this is the latter. 

  3. I just *did* re-read the book, finished yesterday, and until I saw this post I didn’t even know there *was* a remake. For the last four or five months I’ve been totally getting back into reading King, something I haven’t done in about 15 years. When I was between 15 and 20, I was a total fan of the guy, but at some point he just got too wordy for me. Then, probably for lack of something better to do, I re-read Salem’s Lot, and suddenly I was hooked again. Then I decided to start from the top, and Carrie just happens to be his first novel. Must be one of those famous coincidences ;-) Now I have to make up my mind if I want to see this or not; in general, my experience with movies based on books is not very good, with one single exception. Although I do have to say that the few movies / TV mini series I have seen of King’s work came closer to the books than most other movie adaptions.

    1. was the exception “to kill a mockingbird”? because that is the one exception that stands out for me, the book and the the movie are equally their own outstanding creations, taking full advantage of the avenues each medium offers.
      Its interesting to see the contemporary take on the casting of Carrie, this actress has the modern sex gleam that Sissy Spacek probably had in the previous era, but does not translate directly to this one.

      1. No… I haven’t read or watched that; just didn’t get around to that yet. It’s on the list, though. You’re probably gonna laugh, but it was “The Bridges of Madison County”. Now please don’t get the wrong idea of my reading habits, that was the *only* love story I *ever* read ;-). Other than that my book shelves are populated almost exclusively with SF / Fantasy / Thriller, with the occasional Historic Fiction thrown in. I have to admit, though, I *did* enjoy the Bridges, and the movie, too. (Of course that was long before Eastwood got into the habit of talking to empty chairs. That pretty much spoiled his movies for me.)

        As for the Carrie casting, I don’t think either of them looks right, although I have to admit I’m basing that on IMDB pictures — I haven’t seen the old movie, either.

    2. It’s interesting to re-read early King works; I think that his style has improved with age overall, but there’s an experimental aspect to many of his earlier novels that’s sometimes startling, or maybe it’s just that he hasn’t revisited those tropes numerous times yet, as he does throughout his career. For example, ‘Salem’s Lot seems throughout to be as much an examination of the slow death of a Maine town due to the failure of the textile industry and the decline of small town life in America in general as it is about a vampire plague.

  4. I eagerly await the day when the word “remake” is no longer used to describe new adaptations of old source works. It’s obvious that this movie, like many other re-adaptations of novels, such as True Grit, will largely ignore the adaptations of other filmmakers, and instead tell a fresh take on the source material. So please, please, stop using the word “remake”. It doesnt apply here. This is just “the new Carrie film”.

Comments are closed.