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

  • New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
  • Hot Topics is on indefinite hiatus.

  • 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.
Aug 28, 2014
129
440
46
Broken Arrow, OK
#23
At the end of it all, there's still the book... and that's all that matters.
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!"
 

Pucker

We all have it coming, kid
May 9, 2010
2,906
6,209
56
#24
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!"
Exactly.

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.

; )
 

Religiously_Unkind

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2017
444
2,214
26
#27
Then they shouldn't even be referring to it by name or any other type of way. If it's got nothing to do with the original story, then they should find another title as it's misleading the public (which absolutely never happens in Hollywood, right? Remember Halloween III?). ;-D Lord, I'm starting to sound like Annie Wilkes! 'It never happened in the cock-a-doodie book or movie!!!!!'
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.
 

Dynamo

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2017
90
287
38
Denton, TX
#28
"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.

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.
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:

grin willard

Grin. Boasting a profile u could cut cheese with.
Feb 21, 2017
1,064
5,567
45
#30
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:

grin willard

Grin. Boasting a profile u could cut cheese with.
Feb 21, 2017
1,064
5,567
45
#32
Ok so it’s not a remake it’s just a movie using c.u.j.i.o for a dog team?
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.
 

Religiously_Unkind

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2017
444
2,214
26
#38
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
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.
 

grin willard

Grin. Boasting a profile u could cut cheese with.
Feb 21, 2017
1,064
5,567
45
#39
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.

 
We’ve created a Stephen King Library action for the 
			  Google Assistant and skill for Amazon Alexa. It'll give 
			  you a personalized reading recommendations based on your 
			  answers to a series of questions—so what are you waiting 
			  for? Find out which Stephen King book you should read 
			  next!