I actually saw this video a few days ago (well, "heard" would be more accurate - I was listening to it while making breakfast), but I was too busy to leave a comment until now.
Anyway, I wanted to say that I liked the video, and I appreciate the fact that you were *gasp* willing to acknowledge the original novel's flaws. As for the 2002 movie... I haven't actually seen it, but I admit the notion of the Carrie TV series intrigued me. I agree that there are obvious ethical problems with centering a show around a mass murderer, but I think it could have worked if the show addressed the issue head on and frame Carrie's plot as the attempt to redeem herself. But, since the show never made it to the air, I guess we'll never know
I guess to me the idea that the other people would specifically have telekinetic powers every time would get really old. And if you follow what he says in the book, it would always be women, because men can only be carriers. So you would have almost essentially the same thing happening every episode. Maybe they would have branched it out, tried to bring in other types of powers to change it up.
But my main problem is Sue and how incredibly inconsistent her character is. Either she's a nice girl that wants to help people worse off than her, or she's a bitch who only feels bad about the one incident. She can't be both, and yet the movie flip flops back and forth with her character depending on what scene it is.
I guess to me the idea that the other people would specifically have telekinetic powers every time would get really old. And if you follow what he says in the book, it would always be women, because men can only be carriers. So you would have almost essentially the same thing happening every episode. Maybe they would have branched it out, tried to bring in other types of powers to change it up.
That depends on how creative the writers would've gotten. Grimm came up with some interesting variations on "Main character captures criminals straight out of Grimm's fairy tales" premise, and Nikita is being surprisingly creative with the current "good guys hunt down rogue spies" arc by changing up motivations and modus apparati (spelling?). I think they might have been able to keep the Carrie show going, though I don't think it would have survived on a central premise alone. If the show did happen, I would have expected to see side plots, maybe more ideas from King's multiverse. Who knows...
But my main problem is Sue and how incredibly inconsistent her character is. Either she's a nice girl that wants to help people worse off than her, or she's a bitch who only feels bad about the one incident. She can't be both, and yet the movie flip flops back and forth with her character depending on what scene it is.
Characters can be contradictory. The trick is making the contradictions part of the character in a way that has some internal logic. Of course, in this case, it doesn't sounds like the writers reallly tried, so you're probably right.
I've got major problems with the 2002 remake, but I don't mind the idea of letting Carrie live all that much. I have no clue how a good television series could have possibly been the result, but since the remake was written by the guy who is currently writing and producing "Hannibal," it could have happened, I guess.
As for the Carrie-gets-away-with-mass-murder angle...I think this is obviously a very tricky subject. However, the novel, the original movie, and the 2002 remake all hint toward the idea that Carrie is not fully in control of herself between the time when she gets doused with the blood and later, when she gets back home. The 2002 version actually sets up the idea rather nicely, showing Carrie zoning out during one scene and, essentially, experiencing lost time. It's still her who does the killing; but the implication is that her unconscious mind is doing it. Does that mean she should be allowed to survive? Ehh...probably not.
As for the novel, it's actually one of my favorites by King. The writing is very sloppy in places, but it's also incredibly powerful in others, and overall I just find myself coming back to it mentally moreso than I do with most of his other books. Which is saying something!
(Sorry for blowing up your comments, by the way! I just found your series of videos and I'm watching my way through 'em for Halloween! Good stuff.)
It was a pleasant surprise this morning to see all the comments. And thank you! :)
It's been a while since I watched them all, but that's an interesting idea about her zoning out. She certainly looks crazed, but I never thought of it that way. While I do intend to cover the recent remake in a future post, I will say that was the first one that made me sympathize with Carrie in a way that neither the book or the other film adaptations did.
I actually saw this video a few days ago (well, "heard" would be more accurate - I was listening to it while making breakfast), but I was too busy to leave a comment until now.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I wanted to say that I liked the video, and I appreciate the fact that you were *gasp* willing to acknowledge the original novel's flaws. As for the 2002 movie... I haven't actually seen it, but I admit the notion of the Carrie TV series intrigued me. I agree that there are obvious ethical problems with centering a show around a mass murderer, but I think it could have worked if the show addressed the issue head on and frame Carrie's plot as the attempt to redeem herself. But, since the show never made it to the air, I guess we'll never know
I guess to me the idea that the other people would specifically have telekinetic powers every time would get really old. And if you follow what he says in the book, it would always be women, because men can only be carriers. So you would have almost essentially the same thing happening every episode. Maybe they would have branched it out, tried to bring in other types of powers to change it up.
DeleteBut my main problem is Sue and how incredibly inconsistent her character is. Either she's a nice girl that wants to help people worse off than her, or she's a bitch who only feels bad about the one incident. She can't be both, and yet the movie flip flops back and forth with her character depending on what scene it is.
I guess to me the idea that the other people would specifically have telekinetic powers every time would get really old. And if you follow what he says in the book, it would always be women, because men can only be carriers. So you would have almost essentially the same thing happening every episode. Maybe they would have branched it out, tried to bring in other types of powers to change it up.
DeleteThat depends on how creative the writers would've gotten. Grimm came up with some interesting variations on "Main character captures criminals straight out of Grimm's fairy tales" premise, and Nikita is being surprisingly creative with the current "good guys hunt down rogue spies" arc by changing up motivations and modus apparati (spelling?). I think they might have been able to keep the Carrie show going, though I don't think it would have survived on a central premise alone. If the show did happen, I would have expected to see side plots, maybe more ideas from King's multiverse. Who knows...
But my main problem is Sue and how incredibly inconsistent her character is. Either she's a nice girl that wants to help people worse off than her, or she's a bitch who only feels bad about the one incident. She can't be both, and yet the movie flip flops back and forth with her character depending on what scene it is.
Characters can be contradictory. The trick is making the contradictions part of the character in a way that has some internal logic. Of course, in this case, it doesn't sounds like the writers reallly tried, so you're probably right.
I've got major problems with the 2002 remake, but I don't mind the idea of letting Carrie live all that much. I have no clue how a good television series could have possibly been the result, but since the remake was written by the guy who is currently writing and producing "Hannibal," it could have happened, I guess.
DeleteAs for the Carrie-gets-away-with-mass-murder angle...I think this is obviously a very tricky subject. However, the novel, the original movie, and the 2002 remake all hint toward the idea that Carrie is not fully in control of herself between the time when she gets doused with the blood and later, when she gets back home. The 2002 version actually sets up the idea rather nicely, showing Carrie zoning out during one scene and, essentially, experiencing lost time. It's still her who does the killing; but the implication is that her unconscious mind is doing it. Does that mean she should be allowed to survive? Ehh...probably not.
As for the novel, it's actually one of my favorites by King. The writing is very sloppy in places, but it's also incredibly powerful in others, and overall I just find myself coming back to it mentally moreso than I do with most of his other books. Which is saying something!
(Sorry for blowing up your comments, by the way! I just found your series of videos and I'm watching my way through 'em for Halloween! Good stuff.)
It was a pleasant surprise this morning to see all the comments. And thank you! :)
DeleteIt's been a while since I watched them all, but that's an interesting idea about her zoning out. She certainly looks crazed, but I never thought of it that way. While I do intend to cover the recent remake in a future post, I will say that was the first one that made me sympathize with Carrie in a way that neither the book or the other film adaptations did.