Discuss

10 Responses to “Here is the teaser trailer for Carrie from NYCC (not a bootleg)”

  1. Dee Cook says:

    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?

    • benher says:

      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.

    • Halloween_Jack says:

      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. Ryan Holmes says:

    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. sigdrifa says:

    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.

    • BunnyShank says:

      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.

      • sigdrifa says:

        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.

    • Halloween_Jack says:

      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. Scott Petrovits says:

    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”.

Leave a Reply