Alfonso Cuaron offered The Shining prequel

News Simon Brew 23 May 2014 - 07:31

Warner Bros has reportedly offered Gravity helmer Alfonso Cuaron the chance to direct The Overlook Hotel...

Given what Gravity did for Warner Bros' bottom line over the past year, and given how acclaimed the film was, it's perhaps unsurprising that it wants to keep director Alfonso Cuaron close to the studio. Earlier in the week, it was reported that he was in negotiations to direct the first Harry Potter spin-off, Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them. Now, SchmoesKnow is reporting that the studio has offered him the prequel to The Shining.

Entitled The Overlook Hotel, The Shining prequel is currently in the hands of writer Glen Mazzara (one-time showrunner of The Walking Dead), and whilst it's unclear if Cuaron will accept the job, the site seems sure he's been offered it.

Given that Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them already has a locked release date in November 2016, we'd imagine that's the priority project. We'll keep you posted on both.

SchmoesKnow.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

Did King write this, or write a source novel? Or is it a new concept?

Why aren't they doing Dr Sleep instead? It just doesn't make sense. Its a cracking story and would make a great film. You know nothing, Hollywood!

If they did Doctor Sleep none of it would add up to Kubrick's The Shining. They'd have to remake The Shining to adapt Doctor Sleep faithfully. Kubrick changed A LOT.

"The Shining" isn't the King project that needs a prequel. "Carrie" would be fascinating. Just what drove Carrie's mother over the deep end? It's easy to forget that, however insane she was, Margaret was correct. Every prediction she made came true.

I'd go with premise that Margaret could predict the future, and that power ruined her life.

It says a lot about Hollywood today that Cuaron can create a big hit - critically and commercially - that was an original concept, yet all that success buys him is the opportunity to helm sequels, prequels and spin-offs to existing properties.

A prequel to The Shining? Giving what Kubrick did to the book, giving that he was incapable even of preserving the spirit of the original novel, this is just a disaster wanting to happen. Whoever this dude is, he can possibly make justice to the backstory. Nobody can. The backstory's to horror novels are there to further the horror of the story, not to be revealed. So, for the very beggining, this prequel is a mistake, just another thoughtless grab for money. I hope this is a joke.

That could be nice, if King wrote it. However, I doubt that he could even consider doing it. Apart for the Dark Tower series, he has only wrote a real sequel once, and I doubt he has any desire to revisit Carrie. And also, if your suggestion could possibly be canon, he could like to write it even less. Kinda sorta rewriting The Dead Zone is not fun for anybody. And if it was not true, then it is even worse. King can write supernatural free drama, he proved that with the first half of Duma Key, but much of his other attempts have be rather lackluster-Dolores Clairbone, Rose Madder-, with only a few hits-Cujo, The Running Man, Blaze-, so, actually, is a rather bad idea with only some chance of being decent.
And another thing, much of the novel depends of the reader being fully simpathetic to Carrie, so, even if the movie was writed by Sthephen King at turns out good, having a real reason to pity Margaret, apart for her being batshit insane, is kinda bad for the whole novel. Honestly, as far as prequel's to King's novels go, any choice is a bad choice.

I'm not suggesting that King write such a book. I don't believe he has the talent to pull it off. I'm suggesting that a film be made, and someone else write it.

>...much of the novel depends of the reader being fully simpathetic to Carrie, so, even if the movie was writed by Sthephen King at turns out good, having a real reason to pity Margaret, apart for her being batshit insane, is kinda bad for the whole novel.>

If there is one thing "Carrie" does not lack, it's hateful characters. Aren't Chris Hargensen and Billy's pig blood scene evil enough?

I was no suggesting that either. I was saying that it could be a nice idea it King wrote the screenplay. And yes, while both of those characters are 'hateful', I simply believe that Margaret is a more interesting character if whe don't know the reason she turned like that, that revealing her backstory hurts the novel in more ways that it could help it. As long has her backstory remains unwritten, we can read the book and analyze her through her actions and her interactions with Carrie. Is just more interesting that having the facts, in my opinion.

Oh, and another thing. Margaret is no important to the novel for simply being hateful. Carrie's life is sucky in all forms, but the suffering that Margaret brings her is the most personal, the most deep seated, the core of the novel. To me, at least to me, the novel just doesn't work if the reason Margaret turned Carrie into such a mess is because she noticed her powers early on and she is trying to repress them so her life is no ruined like her own life was by her own powers, incapable of noticing the distrees she is putting her own daugther through of something like that. The novel is about Carrie, and anything that changes is core can only hurt it.

Since the release of the initial film, there has been four remakes and two major musical productions on Broadway ... all of which failed miserably. Indeed, there is a book about failed musicals which used "Carrie" as the gold standard of theatrical bombs.

It's called "Not Since Carrie...."

Why did Brian Di Palma's version work where all other failed? Because Brian is a horn-dog who included more teenage female T & A than had ever been at that point in a major Hollywood film. Indeed, I believe it contained the first American implication of on-screen oral sex.

Brian understood that "Carrie" wasn't a great novel. It wasn't even a very good one. "Carrie" has never appealed to the mind - but to a very dark part of the heart. Mr. DiPalma wisely made a film that flattered our worst fantasies.

All the nudity, violence, blow-job, and Christian bashing came off as daring and bold in the 70s. Today, without the shock value, there really isn't much "there" there.

A major reason that constant attempts to re-visit this property have failed is because the piece could easily be seen as an allegory for school shootings - with the shooter as the hero. This wasn't a problem in the 70s. Today - yes, it is.

In the first film, Piper Laurie has stated she considered the film to be a broad comedy - that she played her Margaret with so much hatred that nobody could take it seriously for a moment. Her performance today is not much more than a crude stereotype of Christians.

For "Carrie" to work today, it has to be completely deconstructed. That could be done with a prequel. I would love to see a scene where teenage mother Margaret touches her newborn daughter for the first time, and she sees scenes from the Brian DiPalma climax. How difficult would it be for the new mother to intercept the burning gym as her child in Hell?

Carrie is good. No that much compared to anything King as written since then, nor compared to other novel's when it was released, but good. Its not about a supposed shock value, but a little girl which just doesn't know of to live that crashes and burnes and becomes the very thing she hates the most in everything that matters before dying a miserable dead. Its not bad, it doesn't need fixing nor deconstructed nor adapted for today's audiences. Carrie is Carrie, for good or ill, and it has already done everything it needed to do. It paved the way for Sthephen King and that's enough.

I know they have the rigths to adapt Carrie like you want them to, and I they also want to do a prequel like that, I could no have a problem with it. They could be spitting over King and his work and his spirit, but I could no have a problem with it. I just could not watch the movie. I prefer my memories and my book. That's all.

The message of "Carrie" is clear - disgruntled teens have the moral right to commit mass murder in general, and against Christians specifically. The film desperately needs some context - because an interesting villain beats a ridiculously dastardly one every time

Moral right? Never in all the book are Carrie's actions portrayed as justified, nor rigth nor anything like that. And against Christians specifically? Carrie only kills Margaret after she stabs her. Are you saying she sould have just let her kill her? And what are you saying about the villain is completely wrong, too. Margaret is not mean to be a villain. The book itself is not mean to be a villain. The novel's plot is Carrie destroying her life by the actions caused by her suffering and her environment, and her own power. That is not the kind of story to have a villain or even need one. Why can't you understand that?

>Moral right? Never in all the book are Carrie's actions portrayed as justified, nor rigth nor anything like that.>

Of course they are. Carrie's mother is literally the crudest stereotype of a "PRAITH JETHUTH - HE ITH GAWD"

>Carrie only kills Margaret after she stabs her. Are you saying she sould have just let her kill her?>

No, I'm saying that the scene was stupid and guilty of the worst kind of religious bigotry pandering - as Ms. Piper thought at the time of the filming. We are not given a clue to Margaret's insanity, other than her Christianity.

>Margaret is not mean to be a villain. The book itself is not mean to be a villain.>

Margaret emotionally batters and stabs Carrie, who is guilty of no crime other than puberty. The audience is expected to cheer the mother's murder. Yes, Margaret is portrayed as a 2 dimensional villain who definitely needed some killin'.

>The novel's plot is Carrie destroying her life by the actions caused by her suffering and her environment, and her own power.>

A story that could have been told about any school shooter.

>That is not the kind of story to have a villain or even need one.>

I don't believe that you understand that the word "villain" means.

> Why can't you understand that?>

I understand your point - I just believe that it's wrong.

spoiler alert: the caretaker ends up hacking his wife and twin daughters into bits with an axe.

Yes, Margaret is a crude stereotype and as to little personality to be a credible character, I never denied that, but you tiped mass murder, so you were not refering to Margaret but all those Carrie killed in the prom night, and those murders weren't potrayed as justified nor rigth. As for Margaret's murder, notonly Carrie had snapped by that time but is very clear her power is influiencing her and, even when Margaret is a 2 dimensional character, she
stabed her, so is only natural that Carrie killed Margeret in retaliation.

While you seem to think that Margaret being a nutjob justifies her placement as a villain, you couldn't be no more wrong. She is just another character. And the
audience is not expected to cheer her murder, they are expected to see it as another sign of Carrie slipping into insanity and the increasing influence of
her power.

'I'm picturing your heart, Momma,' Carrie said. 'It's easier when you see things in your mind. Your heart is a big red muscle. Mine goes faster when I use my power. But your is going a little slower now. A little slower.'

That is a direct qoute, word for word, of the scene where Carrie stops Margaret's heart with her power. Is obvious that she snapped and is being influenced by her powers.

While Carrie's story could have be been told about any school shooter, you have a point, that comment is off the subject, nor revelant at all.

I undestad perfectly what villain means, I just don't think Margaret should be view as one despite her fitting the definition.

As for that last thing, you never actually gave reasons about why you thougth I am wrong.

>As for that last thing, you never actually gave reasons about why you thougth I am wrong.>

I gave several reasons why I believe that you're incorrect.

>I undestad perfectly what villain means, I just don't think Margaret should be view as one despite her fitting the definition.>

If a character fits the definition of a "villain", then, by definition, she is a villain. Of course there exists anti-heroes (that is, characters with terrible character flaws who nonetheless accomplish noble ends. Examples include Sam Spade, Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle, Jack Bauer, Judge Dredd, Randle McMurphy, and Oskar Schindler.) But Margaret possess no virtues as all. She is as purely evil as any 19th Century melodrama in which the audience was actively encouraged to hiss and boo the landlord as he walked onstage.

>While Carrie's story could have be been told about any school shooter, you have a point, that comment is off the subject, nor revelant at all.>

I disagree. Al Capp once wrote that every cartoon image holds a political view. "You can't draw a schoolhouse without revealing an opinion on the educational system. You can't draw a dog without expression an opinion on dogs."

There is a message going on under the surface of "Carrie", and it's not a pretty one.

If Carrie had used her powers to humiliate Chris Hargensen and Billy, she would have been a hero, and the project would have been a "feel good" movie.

If Carrie had used her powers to murder Chris Hargensen and Billy, Carrie would have been an anti-hero.

But Carrie murdered an entire school full of children - most of whom committed no sin against her, other than not coming to her aid. And that makes her no better than any school shooter - albeit with supernatural powers.

Carrie's place in Hell closer to the fire than Charlie Manson's, but a bit further away than Stalin's and Mao's.

>While you seem to think that Margaret being a nutjob justifies her placement as a villain, >

No, Margaret is a villain because she does evil things. She tries to break her daughter, up to and including a murder attempt.

>you couldn't be no more wrong.>

"couldn't be no more wrong?"

> She is just another character.>

If the second lead character in a book or movie is "just another character," a cipher with no more moral value than Third Student On The Bus, than that is a terrible piece of fiction.

> And the audience is not expected to cheer her murder, they are expected to see it as another sign of Carrie slipping into insanity and the increasing influence of
her power.>

Come, come, come. Of course Margaret's murder was a full throated feel good moment. Fully a third of the movie is dedicated to manipulating the audience into hating Margaret. Carrie is given the convenient excuse to murder Mom. Yes, the audience is expected to cheer at the Christian lunatic's (but I repeat myself) demise.

>'I'm picturing your heart, Momma,' Carrie said. 'It's easier when you see things in your mind. Your heart is a big red muscle. Mine goes faster when I use my power. But your is going a little slower now. A little slower.'

That is a direct qoute, word for word, of the scene where Carrie stops Margaret's heart with her power. Is obvious that she snapped and is being influenced by her powers.>

Are you saying that the power had driven Carrie insane? That she's Gollum, or Charlie X and Gary Mitchell from the Original "Star Trek" series? Sorry, no.

The quote you described wasn't a person slowly slipping into madness - it was an angry girl who has her first taste of power. With a bit of rewriting, it could easily apply to any school shooter who's just gotten a gun.

>Yes, Margaret is a crude stereotype and as to little personality to be a credible character, I never denied that, but you tiped mass murder, so you were not refering to Margaret but all those Carrie killed in the prom night, and those murders weren't potrayed as justified nor rigth.>

When were the murders shown to be wrong? A lot of energy was given to show the teens were hateful creatures - when did King show that their murders were sin?

Where were the funerals - the grieving friends and families?

Sorry, "Carrie" isn't a tragedy - it's a feel good revenge film.

> As for Margaret's murder, notonly Carrie had snapped by that time but is very clear her power is influiencing her and,...>

It's not at all clear Carrie's power influenced her. There's not a hint of that in the film or book. Carrie's power no more brought out her evil than Marc Lépine gun controlled him.

> even when Margaret is a 2 dimensional character, shestabed her, so is only natural that Carrie killed Margeret in retaliation.>

But you said it was the power that compelled Carrie to murder her mother, Now you say it's was "only natural".

The murders where show to be wrong in the reactions. The whole Sue Snell testimony scene, and the epilogue after Carrie's death. Even Sue Snell, the character who cares about Carrie the most, clearly express that, while some murders were kinda justified, killing innocents is just wrong, and that the entire prom nigth was a giant mistake and avoidable tragedy.

What I mean about Margaret being just another character is not that she lacks importance, but that the novel is general is too short to be anything but a character sketch of Carrie, and that is precisily what the novel is intended to be, so Margaret is not mean to be view as a villain, she is meant to be view as what her character is, the crazy religious mother without a clear motive for anything at all, just existing to make Carrie's life miserable and to deepend the tragic irony of the prom nigth.

I didn't directly said that Carrie having powers made her evil, but that the whole circustances and having her hope crushed and the highest made it easier for Carrie to give herself into power. Also, after the pig blood thing she has a complete change of personality, so yes, she is being influenced in some ways. About the whole bit of the murder of Margaret, I meant that, I the state Carrie was, an after just getting stabbed, is natural for the person she has become to kill her in retaliation.

Margaret is a nutjob for her acts, and those acts are all evil. I always said that.

I still disaggre about what the audience is expected to fell for Margaret's murder, but I could just be repeating myself if I explained.

About what you think of the qoute, remember what I talked about the complete personality change at the prom before she star's ligthing people on fire? That qoute is another proof of that.

And about that Al Capp qoute, while the views of the writer are expressed to some extent, sometimes a story is just a story and a tennager litgthing a gym on fire for revenge is just a tennager ligthing a gym of fire for revenge. Don't be so pretentious.

The reasons I asked you about are why you think I am so wrong in no view Margaret as a villain, apart for saying she is obviously evil.

I heard that someone is making a movie of Gerald's Game. Now that sounds like a far more intriguing adaptation than this

Yes, Alfonso, take it! What could possibly go wrong?

(hint: everything)

I wouldn't mind a horror-movie set in a haunted hotel, but I'm not so sure there needs to be a new movie tied together to a previously made one. Just let Cuaron make his own type of horror-movie set in a creepy hotel, without connecting it to The Shining.

An exact translation of the novel: no - an incredible film: yes.

I can count successful prequels on one hand. It's such a played out concept.

Sponsored Links