Latest Posts(2)
See All"Nobody Needs To See Carrie Again": Carrie Star Matthew Lillard Breaks Down Why Mike Flanagan Is Updating Stephen King's Story 50 Years Later
I am firmly against any attempt to remake Carrie, especially for "modern times." The book is a product of the 70s and the movie is too, and both are genius in the context of their times. They can both be enjoyed today.
Mr King has dozens of dozens of works that are as great or better, that have yet to be adapted.
What a waste.
It is just lazy to jump onto a successful prior version and build from that. Lazy, but the type of "safe" idiocy Hollywood prefers now. This is why it took 40 years for "The Long Walk," even though that book (and The Running Man) predicted exploitive reality TV, far far before the badly written Hunger Games or Squid Games.
Where is "Eyes of The Dragon?" Why hasn't that been adapted yet? Or maybe "The Talisman?" Or the cancelled book where King predicted school shootings, long before he turned far left? That book is full of righteous anger and it reaches people, which is scary for the Far Left of today.
Why can't we just get a faithful version of ANY of the Dark Tower (because I can guarantee the one they are doing now will be changed, with unneeded race and gender swaps as bad as the last one.)
I'm A Lord Of The Rings Fan, But It Took Me So Long To Realize Sauron Is Holding A Dagger In The Prologue
Methinks the author fancies their self a writer, but it is quite the poor attempt. I laughed when I read the line about Sauron's "maniacal finger." Fingers can't be maniacal even by simile or metaphor. Really bad writing.
As far as Jackson's poor attempt at over explanation: the best writers know that not everything needs explaining. Jackson didn't understand that, as he is not a great writer. Exposition and narration in movies is the best indicator of juvenile or bad writing. If you have to use ANY exposition or voiceover, you have utterly failed as a filmmaker. The rule for writing (and filmmaking by extension) is this: show, don't tell.
In the matter of Sauron mixing himself with the ring, Tolkien knew this was best left to the reader's imagination. I would think a powerful god-adjacent or wizardly/angelic being WOULD NOT need to perform such a base and manual action as cutting with a dagger. That is lazy and unimaginative. Why not use dark forces or magicks to infuse the ring with soul, essence, or blood itself? That is implied by Tolkien and much more menacing than a simple dagger cut, just as Darth Vader choking a subordinate with mind powers is more menacing and mysterious than physically choking someone.