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 open from 8:30 AM - 4 PM ET Mon - Fri.

    Dismiss Notice
  3. The message board is closed between the hours of 4pm ET Friday and 8:30am ET Monday.
    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.

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.
    Neesy and kingricefan like 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

  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
    grin willard, GNTLGNT and kingricefan like this.
  9. Hill lover35

    Hill lover35 Well-Known Member

    Does king have to approve of this? Or does he not have the rights to it anymore?
    kingricefan and GNTLGNT like this.
  10. grin willard

    grin willard Grin. Boasting a profile u could cut cheese with.

    Sounds good to me! Ride with me here. The evidence of the director alone says this is a grade Z production. The full title is apparently C.U.J.O: Canine Unit Joint Operations. (lol) My uniformed guess is that, in the film, the military guys choose the name Cujo for their project because it has become synonymous with "vicious dog". Like an (heh) homage! For example, NASA chose Enterprise as a name for their shuttle program, and Gene Roddenberry didn't sue the sh!t of of them. Apples & cumquats certainly. I'm guessing the producers of the film have spent more money on lawyers to make certain they are legally allowed to use C.U.J.O. (and not Cujo) than anything thing else post-production. Imagine if film producers used M.A.G.O.O. as the name for some military based vision apparatus. M.I.C.K.I.E for some sort of mechanical mouse drone. There's probably already some legal precedent for this. But I had one law class in college, I'm no Clarence Darrow. SK will probably think it's hilarious. If he sued, I'd actually be a little disappointed.
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2017
  11. Hill lover35

    Hill lover35 Well-Known Member

    Ok so it’s not a remake it’s just a movie using c.u.j.i.o for a dog team?
    kingricefan and GNTLGNT like this.
  12. grin willard

    grin willard Grin. Boasting a profile u could cut cheese with.

    OMG. I just noticed this story is flipping two years old!! In film hype years, that's roughly seven hundred & fiddy years. I do have some corn dogs in the freezer that are at least as old as C.U.J.O, but they're final destination is almost certainly the garbage, not the toaster oven. This would be what they call, development hell/limbo. They probably broke this story hoping for some "start up money" that never came through.
    Neesy, kingricefan and GNTLGNT like this.
  13. Hill lover35

    Hill lover35 Well-Known Member

    True, but I do not understand what the original concept was? Lol
    kingricefan and GNTLGNT like this.
  14. Religiously_Unkind

    Religiously_Unkind Well-Known Member

    Kurben, GNTLGNT and kingricefan like this.
  15. SteveValek

    SteveValek Well-Known Member

    Destroying everything these days,with remakes and prequels...
    Although I'd give anything to see a film with a rabid chihuahua,or maybe a pack of them!
    mjs9153, Spideyman and GNTLGNT like this.
  16. Religiously_Unkind

    Religiously_Unkind Well-Known Member

    I've always thought it would be funny if someone was trapped in a car with my Chihuahua Ren outside.
    Neesy, mjs9153, Spideyman and 2 others like this.
  17. Toni_S_UK

    Toni_S_UK Well-Known Member

    Ugh how can they remake it?! The Original was far tamer and not faithful to the book as it is!

    They will have to set it in the 80's as well, the whole story wouldn't exist if Donna had a mobile phone! Hang on, they could use the old faithful - no service!

    Ugh and uggghhh! Leave it alone
  18. Religiously_Unkind

    Religiously_Unkind Well-Known Member

    I've never liked the original movie, my mom bought it for me to watch on Halloween when I was a kid and I fell asleep every time I tried to watch the darn thing. I recently read the book and THAT was much much better, very scary.
    Neesy, Kurben, mjs9153 and 3 others like this.
  19. grin willard

    grin willard Grin. Boasting a profile u could cut cheese with.

    I had the opposite reaction. The film frightened me tremendously when I first saw it on cable, and rewatching it last year, to me it remains quite frightening, and well made. And I love Dee Wallace Stone. She's was like the poster girl for unconventionally beautiful! Ouch!!! And occasionally you can tell the dog is just a sweety. :) Like ST said at the end of the novel, he was a good boy.

    Neesy and GNTLGNT like this.

Share This Page

Sleeping Beauties - Available Now