Friday 6 December 2013

Another Carrie Film? WHY?!


it's all about the money!

Hollywood only wants to make films that are "pre-sold" nowadays, by this i mean recognisable "properties" such as sequels, re-makes, superheroes, board games, action figures, breakfast cereals, etc. Why? Well, The only explanation I can think of for all the remakes and sequels is that the studios have become risk-averse. So something new and original might be a success or it might be a bomb. Do the same thing as before/everyone else is doing and it's safer. And very dull.



Carrie(2013) is the 3rd film adaptation of the Stephen King novel. Was another film adaptation needed? absolutely not, but would you pass on the chance of guaranteed financial gain? because let's face it, if Stephen King's name is on it, it will sell. After the much-loved 1976 Brian De Palma adaption which is considered by not only my sister, but many others, as one of the best horror films ever made, other people have been cashing in on this Carrie gold mine (e.g. the broadway musical adaptation in 1988, a terrible and much unneeded sequel in 1999, a 2002 TV remake which intended as the pilot for a series that never happened and now this). 

"Why not?"
Because it is yet another remake, and don't say it doesn't count as a remake because it is an adaptation of King's book, because for much of the film it is a carbon copy of de Palma's classic.
So, why not indeed? Because it is yet another example of the devastating lack of imagination that runs rampant in Hollywood circles, for the same reason a new watered down version of Robocop is being inflicted upon the masses next year to shit on the original.
Just make some new films, it's not hard. There must thousands of brand new scripts lurking around in agents in-trays, propping up desks in studios, but we'll never see them, we will just get sequels and remakes and re-imaginings, because that is all Hollywood feels that we deserve.

I am not a "hater" of remakes
I'm all for remakes if they have something new to offer, or something new to say. I love both versions of "The Thing" and "The Blob" and the first two versions of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". BUT I am wary of all the lazy producers in Hollywood who do remakes for no other reason than the fact that they think it is a guaranteed financial success, or directors and scriptwriters who think a remake of a classic will resonate more with young audiences thanks to the addition of fart jokes or better CGI. If there is cynicism about remakes, it is well earned. I have zero respect for people who merely want to "have a go" and turn out what is essentially a carbon copy.

side note: Chloƫ Grace Moretz is way too pretty to play Carrie.

As always, you can leave your opinions below.

6 comments:

  1. have you even seen the film before u critic it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have!!! And don't get my wrong, the film isn't terrible it was just highly unnecessary and had nothing NEW to offer- like many remakes.

      Delete
  2. I have to agree with you here. Why didnt they just simply remaster the original, give it a shiny new package and spend all the money you save on an original idea?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly!!!! especially since this movie tried so desperately to copy De Palma's classi so wouldn't it have been much easier to just touch up the original by added better graphics, packaging etc???

      Delete
  3. Hollywood has always made remakes & sequels. It has always been the intrinsic nature of Hollywood to produce dross. The only difference now is that less & less money is spent on making original or interesting cinema. This kind of movie is not made for anyone that has seen the original, or even read the book. It is made for the dead eyed idiots that buy into the notion that films can be dated, & that it has to be new to be good.

    ReplyDelete