Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Firestarter' started by Bev Vincent, Apr 28, 2017.
Firestarter Remake: Blumhouse & Akiva Goldsman Reviving Stephen King Classic | Deadline
....I just don't understand the whole "re-make train".....there's plenty of his work that's never gotten the Big Screen treatment, let's see some of that instead of covering old ground.....
This is one that could of course use a re-make possibly. I recently watched the original and its dated to say the least. Lets just hope it does not go the "Carrie" route with ten horrible re-makes / sequels. I think this story is an easy book to screen adaption and in the right hands could turn out cool. Only time will tell.
Well, the special effects will certainly be fantastic......I just hope that there's more dialogue between Charlie and her dad other than 'I love you, Daddy.' 'I love you, too, Charlie.' I hope they don't turn Charlie's character into a teenage sex kitten.
It's the season for SK adaptations and remakes. The Dark Tower will be out soon as will the new IT. Then there's the Mist remake and now Firestarter. But truth be known, I'd give them all up for one more 600+ page journey into midworld with Roland and his Ka-Tet! Gawd...the Wind through the Keyhole was such a tease. It was great, but it ended way too fast.
That would be a major mistake, and one that could easily be made by a studio to "attract a male audience". They better not ruin the innocence of the character by casting the poison ivy era equivalent Drew. I think the casting will reveal what path they choose.
I'm happy to see new interest in adapting King's books and/or improving some of his older films. I'd really like to see Lisey's Story or Duma Key made.
Does King own the rights to this one? Is he involved with the project at all? Thanks.
My vote for the actress to play Charlie........she can still dress like a vampire if she wants to....it really doesn't matter if she's killing Werewolves or setting people on fire with her mind, just as long as it's Kate....lol
That's the nicest way I've ever been told that...lol
I'm totally up for a Firestarter remake. I'm almost 3/4 of the way through the book right now. I keep picturing Ethan Hawke as a suitable Andy McGee. He's good about always having that somewhat bewildered demeanor (think of his part in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead). Not sure about who could play Charlie. I think there was alread another thread about who to cast as Rainbird and I love the Wes Studi idea - that's almost too perfect.
Zone, since this is a Blumhouse project, I'm wondering if the leads will be high-school age. Maybe the filmmakers will rearrange the book and have it start out in high school, and sort of like Carrie, the kid finds out she has these powers. Maybe her friends delve into the mystery -- through the Internet, etc. -- and find out about The Shop. This could also be done as a found-footage thing, as well (think Project Almanac, Chronicle).
I could see Duma Key as an movie adaptation. It has the right elements—an exotic location, lots of visuals (i.e. sunsets and pink houses), ghost ships, ghost children, paintings that come to life, monsters, and haunted houses. Yeah, I'd go to a theater to see it.
Meanwhile, The Talisman continues to languish in limbo.
About the Firestarter remake:
The Good - Blumhouse (they might want to do a rated-R film, but more than likely not)
The Bad - Akiva Goldsman
Funny enough, the whole father-daughter-on-the-run plot kind lends itself to a TV series structure.
Also, as Doc Creed said, someone needs to get cracking on a Duma Key mini-series. With Bryan Cranston.
I think the secret to all of these projects is a collaborative effort from writers and artists who aren't in it solely for profit. Sure, producers want to make a profit, but the bigger picture must be the integrity of the story. David Benioff (and that other guy I can't remember, lol), the writers of the Game of Thrones show, are first and foremost fans, then artistic collaborators, then businessmen. I think when the directors and writers are part of the fandom then the process (from conception to execution) flows naturally. The fire and soul of the project shows up on screen.
I would love to see an HBO type series of The Talisman or The Stand.
You're right on the button there, my friend. I'm a third into reading American Gods, and the clips I've seen amazed me - they seem to have followed that book to the letter. The Talisman could easily be a cable series, as The Stand. Three seasons and done, story nicely wrapped up, leave on a high note. But you know what happens when you want a quick cash-grab to trade in on SK's name? You get The Dark Tower adaptation. Meh.
Hollywood relies heavily on remakes nowadays anyway, so naturally a number of those are gonna be SK.
But there are also constantly adaptations of works that haven't been done yet as films: Dark Tower, Gerald's Game, 1922, Mr. Mercedes are sure now, but there's actually a lot more in various stages of development:
Every Stephen King Movie and TV Series in Development | Den of Geek
You see quite a number of adaptations stagnate at certain points. The road to the remake of It and Dark Tower was also long. I think his work attracts many filmmakers because it's so visual (and successful of course) and it has rich characterisation, but he's not that easy to adapt: you need very good screenplays, actors and directors. Even when he worked on the screenplay himself the films are not always successful, as you see in the cases of Cell and the often mediocre Mick Garris collaborations.
I rewatched Firestarter which I hadn't seen for probably twenty years or so. This was the first Stephen King adaptation I ever saw.
What strikes me mostly about it is the poor acting by Barrymore. I suppose nowadays child actors in Hollywood get better training/coaching as you seldom see this kind of bad acting anymore. It wouldn't be a problem if she wasn't so central to the film and story. It isn't so much the physical side - her facial expressions and body language are quite good - but the way she delivers her lines is really, really bad.
Essentially it's not a bad film, but a very mediocre one, so there's certainly a claim to remaking it. On the whole the De Laurentiis adaptations of King (even if I have a soft spot for them) - Firestarter, Cat's Eye, Silver Bullet, Maximum Overdrive - are all quite average, but they're entertaining nonetheless. The only good one is The Dead Zone, but this has more to do with Cronenberg and Christopher Walken of course.
The main reason to see it, is George C. Scott who is terrific in it. He plays a Native American although that's not made all that clear in the film apart from his name (a more logical choice for the role would have been Will Sampson, whose co-star from One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, Louise Fletcher is in it, but in a minor role).
His role is quite tricky too, as with his interest in Charlie, saying she's beautiful, wanting to be her friend and loving her, he could easily come off as a peadophile, but it never feels that way.
So in terms of actors the film is very uneven.
There are some things that date the film, like a sound effect that's used when Andy (David Keith) imposes his will on other people. Also the ambient score by Tangerine Dream, although not bad, makes it feel dated and you wonder how it would fare with a more traditional symphonic score.
Actually John Carpenter was gonna direct it first, but he got fired after The Thing flopped. In his case we would most likely have gotten an electronic score too.
What doesn't feel dated is the fire-effects though. Fire in films is one of those things when done badly can look very fake, but that is not the case at all here.
I don't think there's a special edition of the film, so I don't know for sure, but it looks like they set a lot of stuntmen on fire and it looks really good. Also other things burning and exploding all look very good and real.
The finale though when Charlie sets loose her powers completely feels kind of short, making the ending of the film feel rather abrupt (I didn't notice this so much at the time). Basically it's just a couple of minutes where she walks from a burning barn to a bridge halfway the main building of The Shop (which kind of looks like The White House), setting people shooting at her on fire, some vehicles and a helicopter, and finally making the building explode. There's certainly room for improvement here, making it a bit longer.
By comparison the carnage at the prom in Carrie feels kind of short too (and all three films skip the scene where Carrie goes into a church before going home) - a lot of the prom scene is building up to the dropping of the bucket, which De Palma's film does brilliantly, making the actual carnage feel a bit short in comparison. But what punctuates that film is the scene with her mother when she gets home and the final dream sequence (which got imitated a lot after that in films like Friday the 13th).
I liked the book a lot. The word 'solid' gets thrown a lot nowadays as a recommendation, but this was a very solid book - even though it was a reworking of the Carrie theme it had enough a voice of its own. And with the way it was adapted as a film there's enough room for improvement for a remake. But I feel it should do something new with the material, reinvent it in some way.
What disappointed it me about Kimberly Peirce's remake of Carrie is that it was just that, a remake, not a reimagination. She even went to talk beforehand to Brian de Palma for advice. So what you get is a complete repetition of the original film, save for new visual techniques and different actors, of which fortunately the central two played by Moretz and Moore were again very good (although the other roles not so much unfortunately). Basically there's not a real point to a remake like that. Unless you can improve or add something valuable to the material a remake feels a bit 'empty' and its main purpose seems to be able to make money off an established property.