Carrie : Why?

This is a useless remake. It offers nothing new beyond the original, which was a great film it its own right.

Sissy Spacek > Chloe Grace Moritz

I think the new generation couldn't relate to the original because it doesn't have cell phones.

Isn't that what people like to say about pretty muchall remakes? I actually thought it was pretty good for what it was, as it wasn't a scene-for-scene remake and did do things to set itself apart from the original.

Respect what you have

---

Isn't that what people like to say about pretty much all remakes?

---

Not necessarily, some remakes enhance the source material, and offer new insights, etc.

This remake offered nothing to improve on the 70s film, except for the kids having cell phones. It was a poor remake, IMO.

---

Since 'Carrie' was never a novel, there's nothing new to add beyond the original film.

---

Okay, now I know you're just being a troll. Carrie was based on Stephen King's 1974 novel of the same name. The 1976 film strayed too far from the original source material. The 2013 film stayed close to the original source material, but many of those scenes from the novel were cut.

We write the story

---

now I know you're just being a troll

---

Could just be ignorant.

---

1976 film strayed too far from the original source material

---

Ok, no. When it strayed, it was for the good of the narrative. Excellent film, excellent book. Artistic licensing is a good thing and was used well in the original. This one stayed too close to both materials without adding really anything new except for a sense of mercy for Carrie at the end for no reason, which shouldn't have been done in my opinion, a huge part of the tragedy was her lack of remorse.

Communism was just a Red herring!

Naw-the 76 novel was written as series of articles and interviews after all of the events so it had to be rearranged to make a film.

ack ack

YeahI didn't like this remakeoriginal will always be the bestI hate how she levitates in this filmit's laughable. She doesn't fly in the book lol.

She does also levitate in the original film, even though not in the same exact fashion. Just watch it again. After unleashing some of her revenge, she slowly levitates in a standing position down off the stage to the floor, and resumes walking.

The story is the same, but the theme is different. Brian DePalma was too focused on making a horror film, then what the novel was about. It was a social commentary on bullying and how it affects our society. This film is needed because of how much worse bullying has become. Its more of a tragedy, which is what the book is about.

Be Brave and Never Give Up ^.^

---

Its more of a tragedy, which is what the book is about.

---

As opposed to the light hearted comedy De Palma made?

When you're 17 a cow can seem dangerous and forbiddenam I alone here?

It is a real comedy when adults are trying to play teenagers in the story where the age is a point.

Accidental double post

1.) It's called acting, not a documentary
2.) Ages of actors are not relevant to a films genre
3.) Sue, Chris and Billy were played by ACTors in their twenties

When you're 17 a cow can seem dangerous and forbiddenam I alone here?