The Dead Zone Remake (2019)

  • New to the board or trying to figure out how something works here? Check out the User Guide.
  • New 2019 Hours: The message board is closed between the hours of 4pm ET Thursday and 8:30am ET Tuesday.

    As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.

Should it be remade?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • No

    Votes: 17 85.0%

  • Total voters
    20

Zone D Dad

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2017
359
1,816
Chicago Suburbs
I feel very much that the running time has a lot to do with Cronenberg's economic style. That's part of what makes him such a great director, he never puts in a scene too much - every scene is functional within the whole.
Dead Ringers is the first of his films to run close to two hours, 'til that point they all run around 90 minutes. Only Scanners and Dead Zone are a little longer, around 100.
Agree. I love Cronenberg's earlier films: Scanners, Videodrome (also '83 if memory serves correct?), The Brood. Great stuff. He lost me a little bit at Dead Ringers. That's not his fault, it's mine. When I watched it I was younger and expecting the crazy body horror stuff that he was known for at that time. Instead I got this psychological thriller/drama that I wasn't ready for. I think it needs a re-watch. I do recall that Jeremy Irons is terrific in the film - go figure. What isn't Jeremy Irons terrific in?
 

Gerald

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2011
1,726
5,373
The Netherlands
Agree. I love Cronenberg's earlier films: Scanners, Videodrome (also '83 if memory serves correct?), The Brood. Great stuff. He lost me a little bit at Dead Ringers. That's not his fault, it's mine. When I watched it I was younger and expecting the crazy body horror stuff that he was known for at that time. Instead I got this psychological thriller/drama that I wasn't ready for. I think it needs a re-watch. I do recall that Jeremy Irons is terrific in the film - go figure. What isn't Jeremy Irons terrific in?
Dead Ringers is amongst the best things he's done, imo. You should definitely rewatch it. As much as I loved it, he lost me a little bit after that with Naked Lunch. Maybe you have to be familiar with the book to like it, or understand it better, but it didn't click with me. M. Butterfly (also with Irons), which came after Naked Lunch, I liked at the time, but I haven't seen it in ages - one of those 'forgotten films' that's hard to find.
Also his work after that, Crash and eXistenZ don't seem quite as good as his earlier stuff. Spider is actually a good film, but it a bit hard to recognize as a Cronenberg film, as it feels very British and you expect some British director was behind it.
A History of Violence was his big return of course, and I think more general audiences see that as his masterpiece, where horrorfans will most likely choose Videodrome (I would choose the latter too).
Of the films after that I especially like A Dangerous Method a lot (it looks absolutely fantastic on the blu-ray I have), but probably Cosmopolis the most. Cosmopolis feels most like his earlier horror work to me, even though it is not horror. His kind of horror is often described as 'body-horror', but in a way the films always were kind of sci-fi too; not in a very clear way though - they seem to take place in the present, but the ideas that are presented feel sci-fi often. That sci-fi vibe was back in Cosmopolis.
Maps to the Stars, his latest, was not bad, but it didn't feel very Cronenberg, even less than Spider perhaps.
 

Zone D Dad

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2017
359
1,816
Chicago Suburbs
Dead Ringers is amongst the best things he's done, imo. You should definitely rewatch it. As much as I loved it, he lost me a little bit after that with Naked Lunch. Maybe you have to be familiar with the book to like it, or understand it better, but it didn't click with me. M. Butterfly (also with Irons), which came after Naked Lunch, I liked at the time, but I haven't seen it in ages - one of those 'forgotten films' that's hard to find.
Also his work after that, Crash and eXistenZ don't seem quite as good as his earlier stuff. Spider is actually a good film, but it a bit hard to recognize as a Cronenberg film, as it feels very British and you expect some British director was behind it.
A History of Violence was his big return of course, and I think more general audiences see that as his masterpiece, where horrorfans will most likely choose Videodrome (I would choose the latter too).
Of the films after that I especially like A Dangerous Method a lot (it looks absolutely fantastic on the blu-ray I have), but probably Cosmopolis the most. Cosmopolis feels most like his earlier horror work to me, even though it is not horror. His kind of horror is often described as 'body-horror', but in a way the films always were kind of sci-fi too; not in a very clear way though - they seem to take place in the present, but the ideas that are presented feel sci-fi often. That sci-fi vibe was back in Cosmopolis.
Maps to the Stars, his latest, was not bad, but it didn't feel very Cronenberg, even less than Spider perhaps.
I really wanted to like A History of Violence. It had such promise. Oddly enough, what ended up hurting it for me was William Hurt's performance, of all things. Personally, I think he's one of our best actors and I just couldn't find him believable in the role. I may revisit that one as well, because the first hour + or so of that film is terrific.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mal and GNTLGNT

Gerald

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2011
1,726
5,373
The Netherlands
I really wanted to like A History of Violence. It had such promise. Oddly enough, what ended up hurting it for me was William Hurt's performance, of all things. Personally, I think he's one of our best actors and I just couldn't find him believable in the role. I may revisit that one as well, because the first hour + or so of that film is terrific.
But isn't Hurt hardly in it? If I'm not mistaken only towards the end... I thought everyone in it is terrific: Mortensen, Bello, and especially Harris.

What suddenly occured to me about what made this film feel very Cronenberg and similar to his earlier horrorfilms, even if it is not horror: there is a certain inevitability concerning the fate of the main characters of his films. You constantly see in the last act of his films that they have to face a confrontation they can't avoid (and that often seems to be their death or undoing). When Mortensen drives back in his car to his criminal past he thought he had managed to escape, it feels very Cronenberg to me. It's probably what appealed to him about The Dead Zone as well, but it is also in numerous of his other films - clearly a main theme of his work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mal and GNTLGNT

Zone D Dad

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2017
359
1,816
Chicago Suburbs
But isn't Hurt hardly in it? If I'm not mistaken only towards the end... I thought everyone in it is terrific: Mortensen, Bello, and especially Harris.
Yes - only the last 30 minutes or so, and if memory serves correct, he got an Acadamy Award nomination for it! I couldn't wrap my head around it. He seemed (to me anyway) so miscast in the part that it took me completely out of the experience, and I hate that. It's like Ted Dansen showing up in Saving Private Ryan - what the hell??
 

Gerald

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2011
1,726
5,373
The Netherlands
Yes - only the last 30 minutes or so, and if memory serves correct, he got an Acadamy Award nomination for it! I couldn't wrap my head around it. He seemed (to me anyway) so miscast in the part that it took me completely out of the experience, and I hate that. It's like Ted Dansen showing up in Saving Private Ryan - what the hell??
The Oscars don't make much sense often. The other three deserved it more in this case probably. I can't remember if it bothered me, at least not so much that it took me out of the movie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mal and GNTLGNT

Dynamo

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2017
90
300
38
Denton, TX
I don't think it's a popular enough book to get turned get a two film deal. And the reason it's not one of his bigger books is probably the same reason it wouldn't break any box office records today, it's not Horror (what people generally think of and want out of King, plus horror is still big in theaters) and it's not going to work as an adrenaline-fueled popcorn flick. It's subtle, and subtle isn't the type of thing you can count on two put butts in the seats twice. Plus I just don't think there's enough material for two movies, at least not two good ones.

Besides, The Dead Zone was already remade to perfection...
 

muskrat

Dis-Member
Nov 8, 2010
4,486
19,267
Under your bed
Yeah, I always rather liked the Dead Zone flick. I'll always see Chisopher Walken in my head when I read that book, like I see Jack Nicholson when I read the Shining. And like I'll always see them New Kids from the It when I reread that one (for the fifth or sixth time).

Almost wish for a Pet Semetarah remake, a'yuh. But...you can't replace Fredd Gwynn. Nope. (Them Creeds, though...ye gods, act much?).
 

MarkFurru82

Member
Aug 30, 2017
9
35
36
If they remake The Dead Zone, there are several actors I think could be Johnny - Justin Timberlake, Tom Hardy, Will Smith (race swaps are happening all the time in Hollywood now, and he's a decent actor, so why not?), Michael Fassbender, et al.

I would probably pick Natalie Portman for Sarah, and I'd definitely pick Josh Brolin for Stillson.
 

MarkFurru82

Member
Aug 30, 2017
9
35
36
Yeah, I always rather liked the Dead Zone flick. I'll always see Chisopher Walken in my head when I read that book, like I see Jack Nicholson when I read the Shining. And like I'll always see them New Kids from the It when I reread that one (for the fifth or sixth time).

Almost wish for a Pet Semetarah remake, a'yuh. But...you can't replace Fredd Gwynn. Nope. (Them Creeds, though...ye gods, act much?).
If PS gets remade, I'd like to see Samuel L. Jackson as Jud. And perhaps real life couple Ben Foster and Laura Prepon as Louis and Rachel. Oh, and maybe it'd be cool for Avenged Sevenfold to cover the Ramones' theme from the original film too.
 

wdb1124

The Ayatollah of Rock And Rollah
Sep 12, 2017
801
5,800
44
The last house on the left
If they remake The Dead Zone, there are several actors I think could be Johnny - Justin Timberlake, Tom Hardy, Will Smith (race swaps are happening all the time in Hollywood now, and he's a decent actor, so why not?), Michael Fassbender, et al.

I would probably pick Natalie Portman for Sarah, and I'd definitely pick Josh Brolin for Stillson.
I can't really see any of those guys as Johnny. Let me give this some thought and I'll come up with some ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mal and GNTLGNT

Dynamo

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2017
90
300
38
Denton, TX
Who is the lightning rod salesman? Sorry if this is a stupid question, I'm not well versed with all of King's work.
There's a chapter in The Dead Zone about a lightning rod salesman who goes into a roadhouse to get a beer and tries/fails to make a sale. He has nothing else to do with the story but the building gets struck by lightning later.
 

Hill lover35

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
3,139
16,305
37
Alberta canada
I don't think it's a popular enough book to get turned get a two film deal. And the reason it's not one of his bigger books is probably the same reason it wouldn't break any box office records today, it's not Horror (what people generally think of and want out of King, plus horror is still big in theaters) and it's not going to work as an adrenaline-fueled popcorn flick. It's subtle, and subtle isn't the type of thing you can count on two put butts in the seats twice. Plus I just don't think there's enough material for two movies, at least not two good ones.

Besides, The Dead Zone was already remade to perfection...
Was this from Saturday night live?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mal and GNTLGNT
The Institute - Coming September 10th, 2019