1. New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hot Topics is closed from 4 PM - 8:30 AM ET.
    Dismiss Notice

C.U.J.O.? O. No.

Discussion in 'Cujo' started by Officious Little Prick, Jul 8, 2015.

  1. April 76

    April 76 Member

    It's the new thing remaking movies and tv shows! Leave Cujo alone don't redo it!
    kingricefan likes this.
  2. Shoesalesman

    Shoesalesman Well-Known Member

    At the end of it all, there's still the book... and that's all that matters.
    kingricefan likes this.
  3. Officious Little Prick

    Officious Little Prick Well-Known Member

    The thing that troubles me about this oft-stated perspective is that, for good or ill, many times people have to be turned on to a good book by a good film adaptation of it first. I shudder to think of a whole new generation of horror fans seeing C.U.J.O. and thinking, "What a piece of crap! No way in hell am I gonna read that now!"
    kingricefan and Shoesalesman like this.
  4. Pucker

    Pucker We all have it coming, kid


    I made this same point in another thread about TV, but in a perfect world, people who think they don't have time to read -- or don't like to . . . or whatever -- would see something like Misery or The Shawshank Redemption and wonder what they might be missing in the original story, and then might find themselves at the beginning of a surprising journey.

    I like to read the stories because that allows me to cast the movie in my head (another thing I said in another thread), but when you start remaking things that might not have been very good (or faithful) to begin with, you do -- indeed -- run the risk of alienating potential customers.

    The quick buck is not always all it's cracked up to be.

    ; )
    kingricefan and Shoesalesman like this.
  5. Dana Jean

    Dana Jean Dirty Pirate Hooker Moderator

    I agree, don't remake.
    kingricefan and Spideyman like this.
  6. Religiously_Unkind

    Religiously_Unkind Well-Known Member

    kingricefan and GNTLGNT like this.
  7. Religiously_Unkind

    Religiously_Unkind Well-Known Member

    I like Halloween III quite a bit; The original plan was for the Halloween franchise to be an anthology, unfortunately people were pissed when III came out and there was no Michael Myers, so I guess it was back to the old drawing board.
    GNTLGNT and kingricefan like this.
  8. Dynamo

    Dynamo Well-Known Member

    "The new movie is being directed by filmmaker Lang Elliott, who hasn't actually directed a movie since the 1994 Lou Ferrigno action film Cage II. "

    In fact it looks like his entire filmography as director, according to IMDb at least, is the two "Cage" movies and two Tim Conway movies. One being a short Dorf film. It would appear that with the exception of Cage II and being thanked in a 1999 film called Man Of The Century, he hasn't done anything since the 80's. And as far as his writing credits go, it's this Cujo remake and an episode of some TV show called Second Chance. So my question is, are they taking this seriously at all? Is this an actual feature film or something being shot in somebody's back yard with a rented camera? I don't get upset if a movie isn't much like the book (my name/avatar comes from The Running Man for crying out loud), but this just sounds kind of dumb.

    Halloween III is one of my favorite movies, expect my avatar to change to the Silver Shamrock logo come October. People were right to be pissed because the studio didn't promote the fact it was becoming an anthology (plus it wouldn't be THAT easy in the pre-internet days to get the info to all customers) and people were rightfully confused/angry. It's been long enough though and people should know what they're getting these days, so if they can put the title aside it's a really fun horror movie. And it has Tom Atkins whose mustache was imbued with the power of Stonehenge in that movie.
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2017 at 10:59 PM
    GNTLGNT and kingricefan like this.

Share This Page