Does Stephen King benefit financially from this new Carrie film? And did he also earn money for the Carrie sequel that was made a few years ago? I believe I've read that sometimes a film is made from his material that does not generate any money for him (as an example, he supposedly makes no money from the Children of the Corn sequels).
Be strange if he doesn't benefit. I think a new Carrie film is a cool idea, yet, at the same time, you have to wonder if those who have seen the original will be able to truly enjoy it. I do like, at times, the modern Scream-type look of horror films targeted at the youth. The orginal Carrie was made in a different era, so it might be interesting to see the modern version.
It's my understanding that he doesn't financially benefit from the remakes and/or sequels because once the film rights are sold, ownership passes to the company that purchased them. It really depends upon how the initial contract was drawn up. What can happen, though, is that it might pique interest in the source material so that there will be new sales from the books and he would profit from that. To be honest, though, my philosophy is that the money he makes and how he makes it is none of my business as long as my paycheck clears the bank so even on the rare occasion when I see a contract, I'm not paying much attention to it other than where to file it.
I agree with your point about why remakes are necessary or whether those who've seen the original would be interested but my guess is the producers are hoping to both get a new generation of movie-goers to watch and have those who have seen the original/s be curious enough to want to compare the versions.
I'm a huge fan of the novel, and don't much care for the DePalma movie. I like things about the television remake; in some ways, I probably like it more than I like DePalma's, because it seems more like the novel to me. But nobody yet has done the novel justice on screen, and for that reason, I'm really looking forward to the new version. Maybe it will do the trick. And to be fair, maybe it won't.
What I can't quite sympathize with is the feeling ( which a lot of people seem to have) that the remake can't possibly touch DePalma's film. From my perspective, that's not true, but let's pretend that I did feel that way. Even if I did, one of two possible outcomes would be the case. One, the remake wouldn't be as good, in which case I would still have the option of watching the original; so, no harm done. Two, the remake ends up being as good or better, in which case how could you possibly complain about that?
Either way, a remake does absolutely nothing to the original. Oh, except for drive people to watch it who had never seen it before. That always happens, and so is by default a good thing for the original.
To sum up: it can only be a good thing for the novel, it can only be a good thing for the DePalma movie, AND -- who knows...? -- it might even be a good movie in and of itself.
I'm looking forward to it. Saw the preview the other day, and it looks good. I've seen the original, and like it. But...blasphemy I know...I've not read the book. Though I do plan on it, as soon as I can get my hands on a copy.
Saw the trailer at the beginning of the new Evil Dead remake/reboot. Looked *okay*, but I'm not sure I'd go see it. Looks too glossy. From what I saw... CGI is going to kill the prom scenes, I can just feel it. Sorry, don't mean to be a Negative Nancy. For those who are revved for the movie, I hope you enjoy it.