OP
OP
-
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
No, not a parent, and I get it now. Thanks for the perspective.
Also, Chekhov's Gun might be in play with it.
Seems lackluster compared to the old one. I'll give it a shot but it's got to really stand out from the old film which was great.
The book is full of old town lore that King is so good at writing, I hope they find a way to include that in the movie. There are a few stories that Jud tells Louis that I'd love to see in film format. I'm also excited to see how much of the Micmac legend/Wendigo lore they include.
As much as I enjoy Lithgow, I do wonder about his performance since Jud's thick Mainer accent is almost a character on its own in the book and doesn't seem to be represented at all here. At any rate, I'll happily see this as it's one of my favorite books and I think it's high time for a modern imagining, I just hope they nail the tone of the book better than the first attempt.
As much as I enjoy Lithgow, I do wonder about his performance since Jud's thick Mainer accent is almost a character on its own in the book and doesn't seem to be represented at all here. At any rate, I'll happily see this as it's one of my favorite books and I think it's high time for a modern imagining, I just hope they nail the tone of the book better than the first attempt.
They keep showing the truck in multiple scenes, you think they will have the guts to do the truck scene from the book? Or is it just going to be with that cat they show
I didn't realize they were remaking this film.
I always quote the original because of how insane the script was haha
I always quote the original because of how insane the script was haha
A remake has been in the works for years. Maybe the success of IT kick-started it and gave the studio the confidence to go ahead, but like PanzerKraken said, 18 months isn't that quick of a turnaround for a mid-budget horror film.
From Wikipedia:
They kind of have to. The truck scene literally launches the second half of the story and is the crux of what makes Pet Sematary Pet Sematary.
I think they have too.
Its the most unsettling part of the book IMO.
they absolutely wrecked georgie in the new IT. i feel like they might
These movies creeped me the fuck out. I dont know if I was just that young or if I never actually saw the title spelled out, but I never noticed the misspelling. I looked it up and apparently it because kids wrote it on a board and placed it at the entrance. I dont remember that bit being explained in the movies but I've only seen them maybe twice and both times were a long time ago.
Came to post this, love the Ramones and looking forward to the remake.
OP
OP
The director's previous movie has some really disturbing body horror, of injuries being inflicted and of the protagonist slowly degrading horrifically. I can't see them not going all the way with Pet Sematary
I actually started the audiobook for Pet Semetary on Monday so cool, hopefully this ends up good.
Well, sign me the fk up then. That scene in IT, wasn't even expecting it at all, can't wait for more dread.
I think a story like this is probably more scary for people who have had or currently have small children. The idea of losing a child in such a horrific way is one of the scariest things to happen to a parent because its more probable than a killer clown or possessed car.
Last edited:
I just finished the Pet Semetary audiobook a few weeks ago. Great little story.
The trailer didn't really capture it for me, especially the relationship between Louis and Jud.
This is the first King book I read, well, listened too, and it remains one of my favourites. It's an incredibly disturbing and creepy book.
The trailer looks ok. I thought the IT trailers looked like trash too but it seems to be highly regarded so maybe this will turn out the same.
The trailer looks ok. I thought the IT trailers looked like trash too but it seems to be highly regarded so maybe this will turn out the same.
Nice to see that FINALLY someone can make decent movies out of Stephen King novels. First It, now this. I love SK, favorite author.
Yes there's been some good old ones but the majority of the movie adaptations are crap.
Yes there's been some good old ones but the majority of the movie adaptations are crap.
It's his darkest novel. It can really hit home if you have children, have experienced loss.
Yeah, that was incredibly cheap. You can hear them from quarter of a mile away, especially in rural areas.
OP
OP
Ohhh!! thanks guys, Makes sense!
I need to watch the original and I guess this is a perfect time.
I need to watch the original and I guess this is a perfect time.
I don't remember creepy masked children being a thing in the book, though I haven't read it in a long while. Seeing them in there almost felt like something a Producer made then include for jumpscares ("Sinister had creepy ghost children, we gotta do something like that!!! But with masks, then it will appeal to the creepypasta generation! Trust me, it'll be a HIT!")
Lithgow is great and all, but I miss the Fred Gwynne and the accent he gave Jud Crandall.
Also, I didn't know Pascow is black in this remake. Very cool.
Also, I didn't know Pascow is black in this remake. Very cool.
The first was really faithful. This looks really faithful. Not seeing the point at this stage (beyond $money$). I'm one of the last people to instantly hate on a remake, but creatively I'm not seeing the point... and that reminds me of the 100% redundant Psycho remake. This isn't like IT that really deserved a big budget modern telling... the original nailed everything good about the book, and this doesn't seem to be taking it anywhere new.
Lithgow is great casting, but it's hard to put the god tier casting that was Fred Gwynne out of mind.
Seriously, anyone reading this who hasn't seen the original should give it a watch. It's very good and has barely aged a day.
Lithgow is great casting, but it's hard to put the god tier casting that was Fred Gwynne out of mind.
Seriously, anyone reading this who hasn't seen the original should give it a watch. It's very good and has barely aged a day.
This trailer doesn't look that appealing to me, it looks quite generic and the whole "kids in masks" thing seems like a really cheap way to make an antagonist, seems like a stupid addition that didn't need to be put in imo. Also as much as I love John Lithgow, Fred Gwynne will just always be "Jud" to me with that accent he did for it.
The 89 film was quite faithful for the most part (Stephen King wrote the screenplay for it after all). The main changes were the omission of Jud's wife, Norma, (which was quite important for setting up Jud feeling the need to tell Louis about the Cemetery) and the lack of (Major book spoilers)
Also the 89 movie kind of makes the things that come back more "clear cut" evil, in the book it's more subtle in those regards, animals that come back aren't terribly "mean" rather they are just.....off, creepy to the point you sense that something is just not "right" with them but they aren't going around hurting people (otherwise why would anyone bury stuff there to be brought back?).
Because that's the name of the book, and it's based on a real life place that King came across, he wrote about it in a newer introduction for the book that was published a few years back,
You can read that here:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-rhNcOFbhBsC&lpg=PR16&ots=S-MY9Hfh2D&dq=stephen king's 2000 foreword to pet sematary&pg=PR13#v=onepage&q=stephen king's 2000 foreword to pet sematary&f=false
The 89 film was quite faithful for the most part (Stephen King wrote the screenplay for it after all). The main changes were the omission of Jud's wife, Norma, (which was quite important for setting up Jud feeling the need to tell Louis about the Cemetery) and the lack of (Major book spoilers)
The Wendigo, which is the force behind the curse of the burial ground and what is basically the power behind the animals/people that come back.
Also the 89 movie kind of makes the things that come back more "clear cut" evil, in the book it's more subtle in those regards, animals that come back aren't terribly "mean" rather they are just.....off, creepy to the point you sense that something is just not "right" with them but they aren't going around hurting people (otherwise why would anyone bury stuff there to be brought back?).
Because that's the name of the book, and it's based on a real life place that King came across, he wrote about it in a newer introduction for the book that was published a few years back,
You can read that here:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-rhNcOFbhBsC&lpg=PR16&ots=S-MY9Hfh2D&dq=stephen king's 2000 foreword to pet sematary&pg=PR13#v=onepage&q=stephen king's 2000 foreword to pet sematary&f=false
Eh I think the book deserved an adaptation that wasn't a goofy and campy b-movie that captures the grief and horror of the story a lot better. This, at the very least, looks to be a better realized attempt at the tone of the novel.
OP
OP
The directors commented on their approach to this for the movie
https://ew.com/movies/2018/10/04/first-look-new-movie-stephen-king-pet-sematary/
The filmmakers aren't ready to reveal Zelda yet, but they give EW a hint of what's to come. "It's more accurate to the book, I'll just say that," Widmyer reveals. "In the original movie, it's a 21-year-old guy in drag playing it, and in the book, as you recall, it's a 10-year-old girl."
Neither filmmaker is trying to demean the original movie. Zelda, as played by Andrew Hubatsek in director Mary Lambert's earlier film, was one of the most chilling and memorable parts of that adaptation.
"You go, 'How do you top Zelda?'" Widmyer says. "It was big and scary and awesome, but if you think about the reality of the Zelda situation, what that would do to a family, with her wasting away in this bedroom, and a younger sister being frightened of her older sister's debilitating illness, that on its own is pretty scary."
They are hoping "the grounded nature of that horror would actually be scarier than a supernatural version of it," he adds. "The nurse, the medical equipment, what that room would feel like as a layer of dust went on everything." He says their film will show "how that would seem from the perspective of an 8-year-old, going into that room to bring food to her, and how scary that would be."
Neither filmmaker is trying to demean the original movie. Zelda, as played by Andrew Hubatsek in director Mary Lambert's earlier film, was one of the most chilling and memorable parts of that adaptation.
"You go, 'How do you top Zelda?'" Widmyer says. "It was big and scary and awesome, but if you think about the reality of the Zelda situation, what that would do to a family, with her wasting away in this bedroom, and a younger sister being frightened of her older sister's debilitating illness, that on its own is pretty scary."
They are hoping "the grounded nature of that horror would actually be scarier than a supernatural version of it," he adds. "The nurse, the medical equipment, what that room would feel like as a layer of dust went on everything." He says their film will show "how that would seem from the perspective of an 8-year-old, going into that room to bring food to her, and how scary that would be."
I had no idea this was being remade. The first movie is seriously one of the scariest movies I've seen to this day. Zelda, Pascow, flashback scenes, the last scene...fucking so good.
I'll definitely watch this but I'm not expecting anything special
I'll definitely watch this but I'm not expecting anything special
I didn't find the original goofy or campy and I saw it for the first time a couple of years back. *shrug*. This film doesn't need a big budget at all given the small scope of the novel.
