108 replies to this topic

[Christian U]

I would never have expected you to be among the many, Henry.

[Johnny Henning]

I think history - particularly biographical history - has quite a following among American readers. There seem to be an entire group of people who would never read a novel but regularly devour Bible-thick tomes on the life of Andrew Jackson or the Battle of Pittsburgh Landing.

[craggy]

well, when you've only got a few hundred years of history, it must seem like a very interesting and exciting thing. in europe and asia, people have probably had enough of the past.

[Christian U]

I think history - particularly biographical history - has quite a following among American readers. There seem to be an entire group of people who would never read a novel but regularly devour Bible-thick tomes on the life of Andrew Jackson or the Battle of Pittsburgh Landing.

I know, but not as many as the other way round. Plus, the point is that there's different rules to history writing and to writing fiction.

[Johnny Henning]

Plus, the point is that there's different rules to history writing and to writing fiction.

Based on the many books on history I've read, that isn't entirely true.

[John Brook]

A WELL written history books will be way different than a novel. First of all, you can't expect twists in a history book, especially in biographies. You will have interesting anecdotes, but no way you will be surprised because you usually know about the era enough to read about it (unless you are a history student, which is my case.)

[Christian U]

Based on the many books on history I've read, that isn't entirely true.

Well, that it should actually have happened is just one of the rules of writing history...

[David Meadows]

After deciding to create the prequels, Lucas indicated the series would be a tragic one

"Tragic" is certainly how I would describe them

[Dave Wallace]

A WELL written history books will be way different than a novel. First of all, you can't expect twists in a history book, especially in biographies. You will have interesting anecdotes, but no way you will be surprised because you usually know about the era enough to read about it (unless you are a history student, which is my case.)

I'm not sure about that - there have been plenty of occasions when new information has surfaced and been published that makes you re-examine historical events in a new light.

[al-x]

Hello:

Julianne Moore in talks for Carrie remake

Glen Chapman

With Chloe Moretz confirmed in the title role in the remake of Carrie, Julianne Moore looks set to play her on-screen mother.

Published on Apr 18, 2012


From the reaction to the announcement of the proposed new cinematic take on Stephen King's Carrie, it seems that this is another remake that people are less than enthusiastic about. However, there are signs that this could be a promising project.

It was announced some time back that Boys Don't Cry director Kimberley Peirce is directing, which is a good start, considering that themes of identity and prejudice are present in both. Plus the casting of Chloe Moretz in the lead role is another promising move.

Another of the key pieces in the puzzle is the casting of Carrie's mother, and an actress of considerable talent would be required to play the oppressive matriarch and fundamentalist (with a firm emphasis on mentalist) Christian. Jodie Foster was linked for some time, but it has now been revealed that Julianne Moore is in talks for the role. This would be another great piece of casting.

It seems that Universal are looking to make a quality film here rather than simply go for a lazy cash grab. With that being the case here's hoping that the rest of the cast is filled with actors of this quality and this turns out to be a worthwhile project.

The film is set for a March 2013 US release

With bulllying, cyber bullying etc. in the news, it could
be an interesting remake.

I always wanted Marvel to do a "Carrie" analogue story,
where Carrie is a mutant teen who went mideval on those
who bullied her and the Xmen have to stop her from
killing a whole town.

The Xmen already did an Alien ripoff with the Brood so why not
Carrie?


Al...

[Christian U]

With bulllying, cyber bullying etc. in the news, it could
be an interesting remake.

Not really. The basic story is the same; if they just add cyberbullying to it, that won't change anything substantial - and certainly make it more interesting.

I always wanted Marvel to do a "Carrie" analogue story,
where Carrie is a mutant teen who went mideval on those
who bullied her and the Xmen have to stop her from
killing a whole town.

I think there have been like a dozen stories like that...

[Steve Sensible]

I think there have been like a dozen stories like that...

That's what I was thinking. Even Jean Grey's origin has been retconned to include elements of that out-of-control power thing.

[steveuk]

Not really. The basic story is the same; if they just add cyberbullying to it, that won't change anything substantial - and certainly make it more interesting.

<SNIP>

Topicality is a factor for many people.

Humans have indeed been treating each other like crap since the year dot, but how they do it can add resonance for the audience if its handled right in fiction.

<SNIP>
Well, not a lot of people read history for entertainment, that's for sure.

<SNIP>

Sorry, I missed this back when you posted it.

"Popular History" is a recognized genre in publishing. It's a massive market. Take a look at Amazon. Take a look at TV listings for the televized equivalent.

There are a lot of shows out there.

[Christian U]

Topicality is a factor for many people.

Humans have indeed been treating each other like crap since the year dot, but how they do it can add resonance for the audience if its handled right in fiction.

Yeah, but just adding cyber-bullying to a story that's perfectly fine without it won't do that.

I don't know, Carrie just doesn't seem like a very interesting choice for a remake. The movie is great, but it's not something that automatically asks the question of "How would this play out today?" (or with different actors or a different director).

Sorry, I missed this back when you posted it.

"Popular History" is a recognized genre in publishing. It's a massive market. Take a look at Amazon. Take a look at TV listings for the televized equivalent.

There are a lot of shows out there.

Yep. Not as much as fictional shows and books and movies by a long shot, though.

Edited by Christian U, 21 April 2012 - 09:06 AM.

[steveuk]

Yeah, but just adding cyber-bullying to a story that's perfectly fine without it won't do that.

I don't know, Carrie just doesn't seem like a very interesting choice for a remake. The movie is great, but it's not something that automatically asks the question of "How would this play out today?" (or with different actors or a different director).

That's cos ur old bruv, innit?

Stories get retold for many reasons, one is to give a new generation their version of it, with people they know and can relate to.

Yep. Not as much as fictional shows and books and movies by a long shot, though.

So, tens of millions of people rather than hundreds of millions of people?

That's still "a lot" rather than "not a lot", even though its less. Sorry, I don't do this nitpicky stuff as much as I used to but in this case... I am.

[Christian U]

That's cos ur old bruv, innit?

Stories get retold for many reasons, one is to give a new generation their version of it, with people they know and can relate to.

Sure, but that's a sweeping statement that doesn't change that it makes more sense with some films than with others.

So, tens of millions of people rather than hundreds of millions of people?

That's still "a lot" rather than "not a lot", even though its less. Sorry, I don't do this nitpicky stuff as much as I used to but in this case... I am.

Well, you have to remember that my original point was that storytelling in fiction obeys different rules than historical writing, you you'd have to put one relative to the other. How many people actually read history for entertainment is still besides the point even the, really, though, because it's a different kind of entertainment that draws its joy from the gathering of knowledge about the real world, whereas fictional storytelling works a lot of the time with keeping us in doubt about what we know, especially where the ending of the story is concerned.

There are other ways to go, obviously, but the basic pattern is still us sitting there going "I wonder what'll happen next" or "I want to know how this story turns out". Deviations from this structure work precisely because they are conscious deviations, and working with "How did this happen?" is certainly also a common approach (but that is one that usually isn't even explicitly used in prequels), but I still feel that prequels are rather limiting compared to sequels, where only the starting point is fixed.

[steveuk]

Sure, but that's a sweeping statement that doesn't change that it makes more sense with some films than with others.

It was meant to be a sweeping statement.

And I think remaking a film with young characters for a young audience makes a great deal of sense. The film of 'Carrie' is 36 years old! That's older than some of the parents of the people who will be going to see the new movie.

Well, you have to remember that my original point was that storytelling in fiction obeys different rules than historical writing, you you'd have to put one relative to the other. How many people actually read history for entertainment is still besides the point even the, really, though, because it's a different kind of entertainment that draws its joy from the gathering of knowledge about the real world, whereas fictional storytelling works a lot of the time with keeping us in doubt about what we know, especially where the ending of the story is concerned.

There are other ways to go, obviously, but the basic pattern is still us sitting there going "I wonder what'll happen next" or "I want to know how this story turns out". Deviations from this structure work precisely because they are conscious deviations, and working with "How did this happen?" is certainly also a common approach (but that is one that usually isn't even explicitly used in prequels), but I still feel that prequels are rather limiting compared to sequels, where only the starting point is fixed.

I disagree (of course or why else would I be here?) that fiction is all about what happens next? Or even mostly about that.

You don't have to be surprised to be entertained.

Entertainment is an emotional process. The emotions we feel when listening to music or reading a book or watching a movie are the primary reason why its enjoyable and people frequently re-listen, re-read and re-watch familiar things and succeed in re-enjoying them.

The reason there's a distinction between the textbook market and Popular History is precisely because its possible to consume historical fact as entertainment. Its not the same thing as education, although that may be a component of the enjoyment its not the primary purpose. The purpose is the pleasure, the emotional experience of consuming.

It doesn't kill the emotion if you already know the outcome, fictional or historical.

[jleal]

Mummy franchise to get a reboot. Sort of.

http://www.bangstyle...r-mummy-reboot/

[steveuk]

Mummy franchise to get a reboot. Sort of.

http://www.bangstyle...r-mummy-reboot/

After 'Wolfman' crashed and burned I think its more likely they'll get cold feet before they greenlight a really expensive horror film again.

'At the Mountains of Madness' hit a wall before it could get made and 'World War Z' seems to have been retooled as a race against time (zombie) thriller in the translation from book to screen.

The only way we're getting a scary Mummy film is if its cheaper, and that would also be scary for the studio. They're more comfortable making bigger films, especially brand name films.

[Christian U]

I disagree (of course or why else would I be here?) that fiction is all about what happens next? Or even mostly about that.

You don't have to be surprised to be entertained.

Being surprised is not the same as wondering what'll happens next. There's a reason why so many people are obsessed with not being spoilered, and there's also a reason why the common structure of a story that's most often used hasn't changed in thousands of years, from Greek theatre to Cameron movies (Gustav Freytag's pyramid structure is basically the same as the structure McKee and the screenwriting gurus teach).

But I don't think it's necessary to flog that horse any further, Steve, just take it as my personal problem with prequels, then, that I don't always like it when I know where the journey ends.