I guess they are remaking Pet Sematary now

[beat_truck]

https://deadline.com/2018/06/amy-sei...ng-1202402295/ http://www.slashfilm.com/pet-sematar...-screenwriter/ Just what we need. Yet another effin' remake. I also read that an Overboard (Kurt Russell, Goldie Hawn) remake with Anna Faris was just made, too. You suck, Hollywood. Leave the old films alone already and come up with some new, original ideas.

[EvilNed]

It's not a remake if it's based on a book is it? At least not in my mind. I think it's fair to give another shot at adapting a book.

[shootemindehead]

Another remake? Why can't things just rest in peace?

[bassman]

Mushetti’s new adaptation of “IT” turned out quite well, so I’m open to other attempts. As Ned pointed out, I don’t see it so much as a remake if they’re adapting a book.

[beat_truck]

Meh. When there is already a previous movie with the same title and pretty much the same story, I call that a remake whether it is based on a book or not. But, that's just me. Very few remakes end up following the original story line exactly, anyhow. Either way, I won't be watching it unless I hear from many sources that it is worth watching. I've wasted enough time on garbage remakes over the years.

[bassman]

Looking at it as more of a straightforward remake, I’d say Pet Sematary is one of those films that warrant another attempt. Remaking great, classic films is a bad idea, but Pet Semetary isn’t a particularly well made film and the story could benefit from a better adaptation.

[JDP]

Another remake? Why can't things just rest in peace? Specially when considering that the original movie is just fine "as is". Remakes should mostly be relegated to movies that could benefit from one because the original was not done very well or could in fact be improved. A remake of John Carpenter's The Thing would be pointless, for example, since it is perfectly fine "as is". No remake will ever surpass it, no matter how well-made. On the other hand, a movie like Hell of the Living Dead, as entertaining as it is, could be easily improved and benefit from a remake (just taking out a lot of the superfluous stock-footage that Mattei kept sloppily inserting all over the place would be enough to improve it.)

[bassman]

You might be remembering Pet Sematary fondly with the passage of time, but if you strip away your history with the film, it’s exactly one of those movies you referenced that could be improved upon. I gave it a watch recently and it has not held up very well at all.

[beat_truck]

I watched it not that long ago, and thought it held up just fine. Even if it hadn't, I'd still rather see a so-so original than an imitation. Sorry if I can't be optimistic about a remake, but historically at least 90% of them turn out to be complete shit.

[shootemindehead]

Mushetti’s new adaptation of “IT” turned out quite well, so I’m open to other attempts. As Ned pointed out, I don’t see it so much as a remake if they’re adapting a book. Um...it did and it didn't, for me. As an adaptation of 'It', it's terrible. As a film about a scary clown that haunts some 80's kids, it's pretty good, even if the scares are the worst type of loud "BOO" stuff. They overplay their hand too much in that film I think, when the subtler approach would have been better. A case in point being the garage scene where the kids are watching photos projected onto the wall. The scare ending was rubbish. Ruined the scene entirely.

[MinionZombie]

Specially when considering that the original movie is just fine "as is". Remakes should mostly be relegated to movies that could benefit from one because the original was not done very well or could in fact be improved. A remake of John Carpenter's The Thing would be pointless, for example, since it is perfectly fine "as is". No remake will ever surpass it, no matter how well-made. On the other hand, a movie like Hell of the Living Dead, as entertaining as it is, could be easily improved and benefit from a remake (just taking out a lot of the superfluous stock-footage that Mattei kept sloppily inserting all over the place would be enough to improve it.) Yeah, I've always thought that there are various 'not so good' (or downright shite) movies out there that need to be remade. Why remake something that was nailed perfectly the first time around, it's a fool's errand? While we've had some pretty decent remakes, we've always had a load of garbage that craps all over the original and ends up being decided inferior/painful to watch. I've always looked at films like Drive-In Massacre and thought that a really good remake would be in order. You could set it in the 70s drive-in scene, get some solid gore set pieces slotted in there, and generally do a damn sight better job at it. As you say, Hell of the Living Dead is a sloppy-ass shit show of a movie. I kinda like it generally, but boy, is it a mess! As for Pet Sematary? If you're going back to the original book then it's a new adaptation more than a movie remake. JC had a few nods to the 1950s "The Thing From Another World" in his 1982 "The Thing", but primarily it was all about going back to the source material because a 6ft+ tall vegetable-looking man isn't what Campbell was going for.

[beat_truck]

Yeah, I've always thought that there are various 'not so good' (or downright shite) movies out there that need to be remade. Why remake something that was nailed perfectly the first time around, it's a fool's errand? It's likely all about the money. I'm sure it's easier and more profitable to cash in on a popular, well liked movie than an unpopular or just plain bad one.

[bassman]

It’s funny how quickly everyone has pretty much forgotten the horrible The Thing remake/prequel from several years back and go back to talking about Carpenter’s film as if that new one never happened... - - - Updated - - - Um...it did and it didn't, for me. As an adaptation of 'It', it's terrible. As a film about a scary clown that haunts some 80's kids, it's pretty good, even if the scares are the worst type of loud "BOO" stuff. They overplay their hand too much in that film I think, when the subtler approach would have been better. A case in point being the garage scene where the kids are watching photos projected onto the wall. The scare ending was rubbish. Ruined the scene entirely. Hrmm, I’ll have to read the book again. It’s been a long time since I gave it a read but I seemed to feel like the movie did a pretty good job with the first half.

[MinionZombie]

It's likely all about the money. I'm sure it's easier and more profitable to cash in on a popular, well liked movie than an unpopular or just plain bad one. Well aye, that's what's going on - but it so rarely succeeds on a creative level and is kinda haphazard on a financial level as well. Ideally they'd remake movies that didn't work. That's what they used to do way back when - e.g. The Maltese Falcon starring Humphrey Bogart - that wasn't the first version of that flick that they made. They tried once or twice before succeeding. It’s funny how quickly everyone has pretty much forgotten the horrible The Thing remake/prequel from several years back and go back to talking about Carpenter’s film as if that new one never happened... Yep, the 2011 pre-make was a turd. The only time I heard it brought up (just the other day in fact) is to say how naff it is. One of the biggest problems was the filmmakers didn't understand the organism at all. The entire point of it is to be sneaky and hidden - but almost immediately it's smashing the joint up with loads of noise. It only gets aggro when there is no other option. There was really no need to make the movie as we knew what ultimately happened to that camp in JC's movie. The only interesting thing about it is seeing how accurate or inaccurate they were with placing what we saw in JC's movie into this one (e.g. the axe in the door). But yeah, the 2011 film ... yeesh. Remember that featurette they put online boasting about the practical effects? Yeah, where did those go on-screen? Oh yeah, they were coated in layers of CGI thus rendering them entirely pointless. It wasn't horror for the most part - it became an action movie.

[JDP]

You might be remembering Pet Sematary fondly with the passage of time, but if you strip away your history with the film, it’s exactly one of those movies you referenced that could be improved upon. I gave it a watch recently and it has not held up very well at all. What's wrong about it? Seems fine to me. It even had Fred Gwynne ("Herman Munster") in it! Now, how are you gonna top that one??? - - - Updated - - - It’s funny how quickly everyone has pretty much forgotten the horrible The Thing remake/prequel from several years back and go back to talking about Carpenter’s film as if that new one never happened... Yes, it wasn't anywhere even near in the same league as John Carpenter's movie, but that was a prequel, though, it never billed itself as a "remake". It's supposed to be telling us what happened at the Norwegian base before the events we see at the American base in John Carpenter's movie. Trying to remake a movie like John Carpenter's The Thing is simply a no-no if for no other reason than you simply will never be able to get a cast that beats or equals the original. Even for just that alone, any attempt at a remake will suck. The actors and their performances are so deeply ingrained in the fans' psyche that seeing any other face playing MacReady, Garry, Windows, Palmer, Childs, Blair, etc. will result in an automatic subconscious rejection.