Carrie : Better than Original

Better than Original

Sorry guys but this was better than the original. The original feels like it takes forever and the are only a few scenes worrh watching and the rest of the movie lags, but this was enjoyable right from the first 30 seconds. The only semi likable char in original was Tommy. In this one kids are being kids and bullies, but some DO feel guilt,and most of the adults are personable. Totally worth it.

Re: Better than Original

nope.

Re: Better than Original

lol i agree with clock this new one is hard to watch

Re: Better than Original

nope squared

Re: Better than Original

Yeah, that's why this remake is already in the dollar bins cause nobody wants to own it.

Re: Better than Original

That's weird. It's $9.99 at both my local Walmart and Target, even almost a year after it's DVD release.

It feels good to be lost in the right direction. 🌌

Re: Better than Original

Only thing that is better about this is that Chloe is gorgeous...except that doesn't do much for the plot, does it? Spacek was freaky looking enough to be believable as an outcast and able to pass as a little attractive with some makeup...fits the story perfectly.

Re: Better than Original

Oh brother, where to start here...


The original feels like it takes forever and the [sic] are only a few scenes worrh [sic] watching and the rest of the movie lags [sic], but this was enjoyable right from the first 30 seconds.


That's interesting considering the remake is almost a scene for scene copy of the 1976 film. It is in fact so close to the original they had to give Lawrence D. Cohen credit for his screenplay so he wouldn't sue them for plagiarism.


The only semi likable char in original was Tommy.


I personally found Carrie, Sue, Tommy, Miss Collins and others likable in the original film. I have no clue why (or even how) anyone could find the wooden actors in the remake more likable, but whatever. Either way, this was meant to be a HORROR story, not some feel good After School Special.


In this one kids are being kids and bullies...


Uh... what?


...but some DO feel guilt...


And no one feels guilt in the original film? I'd say Sue's guilt over the locker room incident is the only reason Carrie was at the prom in the first place. Immediately after the bucket drop you can tell that everyone there is appalled by what happened aside from Chris, Billy and Norma (the only one laughing about it). Even one of the guys who helped orchestrate it looks disgusted by what they did. There are MANY moments characters expressed guilt over various things in the original. Apparently you weren't paying attention.


...and most of the adults are personable.


Can't say I agree with this either. If anything, the adults were LESS personable in the remake. At the prom, Betty Buckley has a great scene telling Carrie about her disastrous prom date to help calm her down while in the remake they cut all that and instead chose to show her dancing around like some uncool idiot parent from a teen comedy. Hey, who needs characterization when you can get a cheap laugh, huh?


Totally worth it.


It's interesting to compare all three versions so it's worth watching it in that regard. I just found it artless, perfunctory and actually kind of bland.

My horror movie blog:
http://thebloodypitofhorror.blogspot.com/

Re: Better than Original


That's interesting considering the remake is almost a scene for scene copy of the 1976 film. It is in fact so close to the original they had to give Lawrence D. Cohen credit for his screenplay so he wouldn't sue them for plagiarism.


Lawrence D. Cohen wasn't credited until AFTER the film was delayed. The studios requested re-shoots and re-edits to make it closer to Brian De Palma's. Before the film was delayed, there was only one named credited. Whose name was that? Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

We write the story...

Re: Better than Original

The only thing you need to put in your pipe and smoke is the difference between reality and fantasy. You're talking about what could have been not what is. The finished and released film is what's being judged here, not the potentially better (or worse) movie that isn't available for anyone to watch. Plus you don't even know for sure if the original shoot was any better. You are just guessing it is. Usually when re-shoots are ordered it's because what's been shot is so bad they can't release it as is.

My horror movie blog:
http://thebloodypitofhorror.blogspot.com/

Re: Better than Original


The only thing you need to put in your pipe and smoke is the difference between reality and fantasy. You're talking about what could have been not what is. The finished and released film is what's being judged here, not the potentially better (or worse) movie that isn't available for anyone to watch.


Yes, I understand what you're trying to say, but you can't ignore the fact that the original cut of the film was a more in-depth, faithful adaptation of the original source material.


Plus you don't even know for sure if the original shoot was any better. You are just guessing it is. Usually when re-shoots are ordered it's because what's been shot is so bad they can't release it as is.


The original cut received a lot of positive feedback from those who attended the test screenings in December 2012.


Usually when re-shoots are ordered it's because what's been shot is so bad they can't release it as is.


Not always, buddy...

We write the story...

Re: Better than Original

The only one good thing in this neuron & time wasting post is the url to your blog. Nice job, pal!



"You cannot threaten the dead with death, my friend. Only with life, eternal life!"

Re: Better than Original

Thank you very much, kind sir!

My horror movie blog:
http://thebloodypitofhorror.blogspot.com/

Re: Better than Original

Its just so sad to see no one respect an opinion nowadays...

Be Brave and Never Give Up ^.^

Re: Better than Original

It works both ways.

My horror movie blog:
http://thebloodypitofhorror.blogspot.com/

Re: Better than Original

Thank you. My post was mainly to point out that not everybody hated it, which, in a world where most people only bother speaking up to complain, I thought was needed:) To the other person have fun flaring up this board. I actually ENJOY that I have different tastes than the norm and I am not a critic or blogger, just your average everyday person who likes movies. Sometimes the cheesier the better for that matter. While you won't catch me standing in line to watch Gravity or Titanic, I would pay double to watch Fright Night again, both the original and the remake. That's why we have so much variety in our choices, because not everyone has to like the same things.

As for my original post about Carrie I watched the original quite a few times as a kid and adult and my take on it was Sue had Tommy ask as a way to help Chris pay her back for the punishment, and only felt guilty in the aftermath scene at the grave. The gym teacher treated Carrie like it was her fault she didn't know about the period and only punished the others because she had to be seen doing something about it. While it has been a year or two since I saw it, I still felt that way.

Regardless, I am glad i watched it. I hope something out there this Halloween season is enjoyable for those who didn't like it.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Better than Original

Wow. Sharp argument you got, there.

Be thankful for every new day!

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Better than Original

Calling people names just because they have a differing opinion than you is extremely childish and it just makes you come across as....well....a moron.

Re: Better than Original

It's just so sad to see "not daring to disagrees" being equated with "respecting an opinion"

When you're 17 a cow can seem dangerous and forbidden...am I alone here?

Re: Better than Original

Ok peeps after repeated attempts to hack me, you win, I will keep my opinion to myself if it doesn't agree with the general public. Have a nice day.

Re: Better than Original


Ok peeps after repeated attempts to hack me, you win, I will keep my opinion to myself if it doesn't agree with the general public. Have a nice day.
I don't even know where you are getting that from. You posted something that not everyone agrees with. You had to know that going in. Why is it "hacking" on you to have a different opinion?


Re: Better than Original

This and the 2002 television remake are better than the original. Angela and Chloe are better than Sissy

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.

Re: Better than Original

your opinion would hold more water if you weren't such a fangirl of Kristen Stewart aka the most wooden actress in hollywood

Re: Better than Original

Shut up, effer.

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.

Re: Better than Original

I actually think Kristen Stewart would have made a better, more believable Carrie. She's got that mousy dramatic look to her...



Save the trees. Wipe your ass with owls!

Re: Better than Original

What does his/her liking of a particular actress have to do with her opinion of this movie?

It feels good to be lost in the right direction. 🌌

Re: Better than Original

and Kristen Stewart would have nothing to do with someone who holds your opinion, which is obviously nonsense.

Re: Better than Original

10 times better than the original! That carrie was so ugly it was distracting to look at her for long. At the very least chloe brings beauty and class to the role. Nevermind her enormous talent.

Re: Better than Original

Well, this site has the original as 7.4 and this version as 6 ...
Rotten Toms has 92% for the original and 49% for this one ...
Maybe your opinion is not worth what you think it is ...

Carrie is supposed to be ugly and unpopular, that's the point ... having a 'graceful and beautiful' Carrie is just one of the problems with this awful version.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Better than Original



yeh, right.




Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Better than Original

Nah. This is better. More true to the book.

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.

Re: Better than Original


More true to the book


Re: Better than Original


More true to the book.
Carrie was fat and had massive pimples in the book.

Re: Better than Original

The 1976 film is much better if you saw it in 1976, or near then. A lot of it looks quaint now. I still think it's a splendid film, and it certainly helped Stephen King's career. It was going to be a long time before you saw an adaptation of a Stephen King story that was nearly as good as Carrie in 1976.

Re: Better than Original

100% wrong. This and the 2002 versions are much better and more true to the book.

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.

Re: Better than Original


This and the 2002 versions are much better and more true to the book.
I know it's pointless to ask, but just how EXACTLY are the two remakes more true to the book? I mean specific examples, please. Let's see how long this takes...

Re: Better than Original

I can name a few ways: the 2002 one has the rain of stones, which is what the book started out referencing. It also has the town destruction, ruined by awful CGI, but it's still in there.

In the 2013 version, Carrie's character is truer to the book in that she does the prom killing coldly and deliberately. In both Spacek's and Bettis' version, she's in a kind of trance that allows the viewer to excuse her monstrosity. In Chloe's version, she's more powerful, and in the book she was very powerful, though not quite in the same ways. (She was communicating telepathically with people and could affect things far away and out of her sight, and to do that, she was clairvoyant). She raised herself on the bed in this movie and the book, which implies she can raise herself when not on the bed. You also have the rain of stones, and you have the birth of Carrie very similar to what's described in the book. Not to put too much on it, but Chris is the only character besides Carrie and Margaret who is described physically. And she's described specifically as a brunette.

Also, Chloe was actually the right age for the part. Though she is far prettier than how Carrie was described, she was physically closer to the book's description than either Spacek or Bettis. And she looked younger, when Carrie was obviously a late-bloomer.

Chris' father enters into the plot in this one.

And Ms. Dejardins was the most faithful to the book yet, and she survives the prom massacre, as she did in the book. (She also survives in the 2002 version).

Re: Better than Original

Fair enough. Personally I don't think these elements are so important as to warrant the 2013 remake better or even as good as the 1976 version. I think the earlier version has a more natural and organic sense about it, while this one always seemed more perfunctory and Hollywood. I also think the original cast (most of whom were unknowns and later became stars) was exceptional. I also disagree how Spacek's Carrie seemed to be a victim of her own powers, committing atrocities in a fugue state of some kind. In the movie, Spacek seems pretty aware and deliberate but it's far more subtle -- the remake girl comes off as Godzilla laying waste to Tokyo. The main problem I had with this movie (and most remakes) is the sledgehammer effect where everything needs to be spelled and beaten into the viewer, and the special effects and gore have to ratcheted up to the nth degree or it's not horror. Very few remakes are special in their own right -- 2004's Dawn of the Dead, 2006's The Hills Have Eyes, and 2013's Maniac being among the exceptions.

Re: Better than Original

You only like the original because it's what most people like and you don't wanna face the fact that the two remakes are BETTER because they remain true to the book which is very important

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.

Re: Better than Original


You only like the original because it's what most people like
My goodness you must be as clairvoyant as Carrie to know so much about a person you've never even met. Maybe I like it because it is, in fact, better.

BTW, pig-faced, dead-eyed Kristen Stewart is a HORRIBLE B-actress which severely undermines and future opinions from you...

Re: Better than Original

U might as well beat your head against a wall. You are "arguing" with someone who thinks Kristin Stewart is talent..... enough said!

Re: Better than Original

The three films definitely have different directorial approaches. I don't know exactly what you mean by calling De Palma's "natural and organic." That movie appeared to call attention to itself as a movie much more than the other two did. Natural and organic to me would be one in which the movie viewer would see and hear exactly what an observer in the world would. But De Palma's employment of slow motion, the stab music to tell you Carrie's using her power, and other such devices make that absurd. So, you can't be meaning that.

Now, if you're saying "natural and organic" meaning not so dependent on expensive special effects inserted out of sight of the actors and the director, I'd say yes. The cost of that, however, is that, De Palma had to do things that called attention to the fact that you're watching a movie.

I myself agree with you that Spacek's Carrie wasn't in a fugue state (in fact that possibility never occurred to me until I came to this group). However, I had to concede Spacek's Carrie is open to that interpretation. So much so that the 2002 version took it and ran with it. Carrie in that film was unambiguously in a fugue state. I can argue that Spacek's Carrie just had a creepy stare. Even so, the 2002 version couldn't have gotten Carrie to a trance from Stephen King's novel without Spacek's creepy stare giving them the idea.


"the remake girl comes off as Godzilla laying waste to Tokyo."


In King's book, Carrie after being hit with the blood was exactly like Godzilla in Tokyo, except with remote control. If she was subtle in the 1976 film, it was mostly because they had a low budget and couldn't do the least convincing special effects even for 1976. Moreover, it's arguable that King's imagination was limited by the horror movies that influenced him, which had even greater resource restrictions.

I'm not saying the "subtle" approach was bad, on the contrary, it was very effective. But there were costs to the narrative that I've already described.

Therefore, if you don't have those real-world restrictions in 2013, is there any reason within the story to be subtle? Carrie in the book was pretty damn powerful by the time she got to the prom. Stephen King stories have been in pop culture now since 1974. How do you still impress people with the story, because nothing about the story itself is going to surprise people anymore.

Re: Better than Original

Also, Sue's pregnancy is included

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.

Re: Better than Original

Which is not in the book.

In the book, Sue has a pregnancy scare because her period was late. But Carrie's death scene then ends with Sue getting her period, late. (And the way it's described it can't be a miscarriage.)

So, there was a pregnancy scare but no pregnancy.

Therefore, the 2013 version is not completely faithful to the book. In fact, I don't think any of them were remarkably faithful to it. They really can't be as a movie since in the Carrie long scenes alone where the only action is her thinking.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Better than Original

I won't argue because you obviously missed the whole point of my post. Please reread it and try to say something relevant.
Top