-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Pet Sematary trailer
- Thread starter More_Badass
- Start date
It's still going to suck when it happens.
Oh God it's going to suck
I just got the audio book with a forward by Stephen King, apparently the house he rented had that problem as well and they lost his daughters pet cat that way. They buried it with all the other pets that died on that road in the towns "pet semetery" (misspelled the same way)
Also his son decided to learn to walk that summer and
his son is basically the inspiration for that scene. His son started to run towards the road and luckily he got him in time. Pet Semetery is one big dark "what if I didn't save my son in time" story
To be honest I'm having trouble recalling what the scene you're referencing is about. I watched it a few years ago for probably the second time in my life, and 90 percent of those memories have been overwritten by details on the Edward furlong sequel which I also watched around that time.
you mean the boy getting hit by the truck right?
Yup, idk I saw it when I was a teenager and now I got a lot of new family around that age and it's rough
I remember reading the book up to I think the
but I dropped it after that, it really wasn't grabbing me.
Death of the son
Nope. Saw the scalpel, I'm out.
I saw the scene in one of Bravo's "Top Horror Scenes" during Halloween as a kid. Still do not like having my feet dangle over the bed at night.
I loved the original so I'm cautiously optimistic. I'm particularly a fan of Church's look. I'm just praying that the kids in the masks aren't some cult meant to replace the Indian burial ground/wendigo.
Yeah. It's based off his real experience of encountering one spelled that way.
You might want to fix that or someone will think you're a boob.
*I've spoiler-tagged a bunch of stuff because it seems like some posters haven't seen the original or read the book and I don't want to ruin it for Creatchee or them (even though, yes, many spoilers have been posted. It's just in case.)
No worries. And, yeah, once you have kids, fast traffic gives you horrible 'danger! danger!' signals right to your heart. Actually, everything grabs your heart in an icy fist if your children are under 18, I think. :D
Absolutely.
Yep. Even the trailer made me feel ill. :(
I think we (parents/people who have read the book and seen the movie) are just more 'aware' of it.
No worries. And, yeah, once you have kids, fast traffic gives you horrible 'danger! danger!' signals right to your heart. Actually, everything grabs your heart in an icy fist if your children are under 18, I think. :D
Absolutely.
I LOVE this movie and the book, but I don't think I can watch it now. Heck, I'm struggling to watch ER now that I have kids. Parents with older children, please tell me this goes away! ;_;
Yep. Even the trailer made me feel ill. :(
First adaptation failed
Zelda was cheesy as hell too.
I've always imagined a Pet Sematary remake to have a deeply somber tone. The first horror tearjerker. Hope they capture that with this movie.
portraying a true sense of loss after Gage's death. The book was absolutely spot on in capturing the disbelief and desire to do ANYTHING to bring a loved one back after they pass. The funeral fight and dreaming of Cage's life had he not been hit by that truck were brutal moments and some of King's most honest writing. Even after finishing the book I felt like I would do the same thing Louis did had it happened to me
Zelda was cheesy as hell too.
I've always imagined a Pet Sematary remake to have a deeply somber tone. The first horror tearjerker. Hope they capture that with this movie.
No matter how many serious roles John Lithgow takes on, he will always be the gooftball in Third Rock from the Sun to me.
Looks alright, still waiting on The Tommyknockers to get a proper reboot. Now that could have some really wild shit in it.
The Talisman.
He co wrote it, but it's a must read for anyone.
Eyes of the Dragon. Gerald's Game.
And for the love of god just read Dark Tower already,..by the time you get through book 3 you'll remember this post and nod and say thank you.
OP
OP
Love Tommyknockers and Jimmy Smits is great in it. The part with the magic trick and the little brother always freaked me out a bit.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Going to have to agree to disagree. Something is only a jumpscare based on the context of the scene. Just having a loud sudden noise happen isn't inherently a jump scare. Like this scene was clearly not trying to scare the audience; it was showing us the family's surprise to this information and the suddenness that this danger can happen, which is why the truck passing was something that happens in the background while the scene focused on the mother's reaction and the family's concern afterwards. ie the scene's intent was conveying the family's mindset in this moment and not trying to scare the audience. It's not set up like a jump scare at all.
Wut
It was totally a jump scare. The fact the audience and the family feel the same thing is intentional. It's what every scene in a movie tries to do.
OP
OP
And I'm saying that the feeling wasn't presented as a gotcha jumpscare, trying to scare the audience, but merely presenting how fast and close the traffic approaches from the family's perspective.
Just having a loud noise happen suddenly doesn't equal a jump scare. That particular moment in the trailer wasn't framed or set up like one. The context and presentation of a scene is what makes something a jump scare, not merely the presence of a loud sound effect.
I guess we have different definitions, 0a distinction without a difference really.
In the context of the trailer, yes, I think we can argue that the truck is a jump scare.
This isn't the case in the story/film proper though.
I'm just not that big on fantasy. Do you think there's something in those for someone who's not a fan of the genre?
It's not really fantasy. If you like his horror stories you should still enjoy TDT.
He mashes up so many genres and really, if you've read that many of his novels you kind of owe it to yourself to read his magnum opus. It gets super meta and makes references to many of the novels you've already read.
If you don't want to read them try the auidobooks. The performances really left up the material. It's like IT's audiobook--they're so good that I'll never actually read the books again. Not when I can listen to them. Even King basically thinks the first few DT books read by Frank Muller are the definitive versions lol
lol, you've read Stephen King books that involve vampires, and zombies, and deals with the devil, and aliens, and ghosts, and kids with magical powers and adult with magical powers, and giant evil spiders and clowns from hell and evil entities that walk the earth for centuries and wage war on humanity....and now you are worried about drops of fantasy elements??
:P
Dont worry, they are good books regardless of not fitting a specific purity schema
OP
OP
They're more weird science-fantasy post-apocalyptic western adventure epics with elements that extend into everything from The Stand to Salem's Lot, rather than just fantasy
Alright that sounds good guys, you convinced me. I'll go back to the Gunslinger asap
I saw the movie back in the day, scared the crap out of me.
Just finished the audio book (read by Dexter of all people)
And honestly John Lithgow seems to be a horrible choice to play Jud. There is zero quirky accent and I think with out it being there I will not enjoy this movie. Fred Gwynn knocked it out the park as well.
Just finished the audio book (read by Dexter of all people)
And honestly John Lithgow seems to be a horrible choice to play Jud. There is zero quirky accent and I think with out it being there I will not enjoy this movie. Fred Gwynn knocked it out the park as well.
I have this concern as well. Lithgow is a great actor but I can't see him topping Gwynn and that iconic accent.
He doesn't even have to top Gwynn, no one could....but shit...that last line in the trailer has no heart or dire warning.
His "sometimes dead is better" just doesn't do it for me.
Just finished the audio book.....geez.....that story was super disturbing. Maybe thanks to Michael C Hall channeling his best Fred Gwynn impression ....idk.
That was a good read and sad it's over.
Not sad like finishing IT because that was a huge kick to the feels that they stomped in for good measure. But yeah this story man...
Jud Crandsll is the Deckard Cain of the King universe.
That was a good read and sad it's over.
Not sad like finishing IT because that was a huge kick to the feels that they stomped in for good measure. But yeah this story man...
Jud Crandsll is the Deckard Cain of the King universe.
Just finished reading the book at the weekend (which I adored) and decided to check out the old movie because some in here said it was great.
Almost all of the nuance and great characterisation from the book were absent. It was just a cheap slasher/zombie flick and a really schlocky one at that. I'm guessing they were trying to make a buck off the popularity of the genre at the time? Someone on a previous page said this was a faithful adaptation? WTF?
Bunch of shit that really rubbed me the wrong way...
1. Why on earth wasn't Norma in the film? She's the entire reason why Jud takes Louis to the micmac grounds. One of the most pivotal characters and they replace her with a dumb babysitter character for some reason.
2. My favourite chapter in the book was probably Louis breaking into the graveyard. It's written so wonderfully tense and it's a big emotional moment for Louis and it's just a nothing scene in the film. Just walks in during the day and waits lol. Granted, they got this idea from the book but he doesn't realize he should have done that until it was already dark and too late.
3. The pets that come back are supposed to be essentially the same just a little wobbly on their feet and smelling bad. Church remains friendly even after Louis is mean to him for pretty much the whole book. In the film he is straight up demonic. I laughed out loud when Church threw a fucking rat at Louis! Why would you even consider burying someone in the micmac grounds if this is what they come back as? It's makes no goddamn sense.
4. Gage somehow getting Rachel up into Jud's attic and hanging her got another huge laugh for how dumb it was. It's a 3 year old child! Like....how?!? What was wrong with having her be on the floor like Jud? And then Gage phoning over to Louis. Such a dumb inclusion.
5. The fucking tacked on ending. My god. Way to remove all mystery from a fantastic ambiguous ending.
And that's not even the half of it, just the major stuff. Just about the only things the movie did right were the Zelda scenes and the casting of Jud who was pretty great.
The trailer for the new version looks to be a lot more faithful to the book, although they just couldn't help themselves with the children wearing masks stuff. What on earth is that about? There looks to be an adult sized coffin shown in the trailer as well which hopefully means Norma will be in this adaptation.
Almost all of the nuance and great characterisation from the book were absent. It was just a cheap slasher/zombie flick and a really schlocky one at that. I'm guessing they were trying to make a buck off the popularity of the genre at the time? Someone on a previous page said this was a faithful adaptation? WTF?
Bunch of shit that really rubbed me the wrong way...
1. Why on earth wasn't Norma in the film? She's the entire reason why Jud takes Louis to the micmac grounds. One of the most pivotal characters and they replace her with a dumb babysitter character for some reason.
2. My favourite chapter in the book was probably Louis breaking into the graveyard. It's written so wonderfully tense and it's a big emotional moment for Louis and it's just a nothing scene in the film. Just walks in during the day and waits lol. Granted, they got this idea from the book but he doesn't realize he should have done that until it was already dark and too late.
3. The pets that come back are supposed to be essentially the same just a little wobbly on their feet and smelling bad. Church remains friendly even after Louis is mean to him for pretty much the whole book. In the film he is straight up demonic. I laughed out loud when Church threw a fucking rat at Louis! Why would you even consider burying someone in the micmac grounds if this is what they come back as? It's makes no goddamn sense.
4. Gage somehow getting Rachel up into Jud's attic and hanging her got another huge laugh for how dumb it was. It's a 3 year old child! Like....how?!? What was wrong with having her be on the floor like Jud? And then Gage phoning over to Louis. Such a dumb inclusion.
5. The fucking tacked on ending. My god. Way to remove all mystery from a fantastic ambiguous ending.
And that's not even the half of it, just the major stuff. Just about the only things the movie did right were the Zelda scenes and the casting of Jud who was pretty great.
The trailer for the new version looks to be a lot more faithful to the book, although they just couldn't help themselves with the children wearing masks stuff. What on earth is that about? There looks to be an adult sized coffin shown in the trailer as well which hopefully means Norma will be in this adaptation.
The old movie is awful. When the wife and I watched it during Halloween, there was much cringe. However, having a one year old and seeing Gage get hit was very disturbing.
For the new movie..John Connor should just go back in time to fix the death. *Rimshot*
For the new movie..John Connor should just go back in time to fix the death. *Rimshot*
Yeah, welcome to the world of Stephen King adaptations. I loved the new It movie, but it(hehe) and the mini-series PALES in comparison to the novel, ESPECIALLY regarding the depictions of Pennywise itself.Just finished reading the book at the weekend (which I adored) and decided to check out the old movie because some in here said it was great.
Almost all of the nuance and great characterisation from the book were absent. It was just a cheap slasher/zombie flick and a really schlocky one at that. I'm guessing they were trying to make a buck off the popularity of the genre at the time? Someone on a previous page said this was a faithful adaptation? WTF?
People misremeber how bad it is. It's like a made-for-TV movie and misfires on everything great in the novel. Acting is awful and they all act like they hate each other and it's incredibly rushed.
I like Starry Eyes so I have hope for the new one, but the trailer didn't do much for me.
I like Starry Eyes so I have hope for the new one, but the trailer didn't do much for me.
New trailer, if you want to avoid spoilers I'd definitely recommend skipping this one and waiting for the theatrical release
So they basically changed a good chunk of the story...
Instead of ...
.. it's Ellie, because "creepy little girls" are creepy! Also, "creepy zombie children in masks", because.... BOO! *jumpscare* Meh...
Instead of ...
Gage dying,
Wow.....what a spoiler filled trailer. What was the point of that.
Horrible Judd casting, all the charm of that character is gone. Nah this whole movie is wrong. Sometimes dead is better. This movie is what happens when you bury this script in the old mickmack burial grounds.