The acclaimed Star Trek writer has written a sly adaptation of Stephen King

In 1976, Brian De Palma directed the first film adaptation of a Stephen King novel with Carrie. This was long before the author became a household name, so there was no notable buzz about the adjustments the director made to the narrative. Even if some craft writers have thrown a tantrum at the film for not being an overly faithful remake of King’s original story, most fans of the book to this day will tell you that De Palma and screenwriter Lawrence D. Cohen delivered a film with impressive succinctness. This is captivatingly true in spirit to Carrie White’s tragic journey.

It may be difficult for many to imagine someone making Better movie than “Carrie” From a filmmaking legend like De Palma, but there is always room for different interpretations of a great novel. After all, there is Multiple classic adaptations of Little Women by Louisa May Alcott (including Greta Gerwig’s 2019 version) And several worthwhile takes on several Jane Austen novels (Pride and Prejudice and Emma). Hire a great writer to handle a great piece of material, and there’s reason to believe you’ll get at least something worthwhile, if not great.

So why, when NBC commissioned one of the best writers ever to come out of the “Star Trek” universe to play Carrie, did this immensely talented writer animate Snake Eyes?

Bryan Fuller is more than just the famous writer responsible for many great episodes of “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine” and “Voyager.” He is also the creator of the classic TV series “Pushing Daisies” and “Hannibal.” More often than not, Fuller hits the mark. So how did he miss the release of the 2002 TV movie “Carrie”?

It was cursed from the beginning when, according to Fuller N Interview with Comic Book Resourcesthe studio (MGM) allowed NBC access to the property only if it agreed to handle the film as a backdoor pilot for the “Carrie” series. NBC acquiesced, but in Fuller’s view, the network was never serious about going further with the film.

This doesn’t mean Fuller regrets writing the film. In the interview with CBR, he revealed that the Uninvestigated series would have found Carrie and her sympathetic colleague Sue Snell (played by Amy Irving in De Palma’s film) driving across the country with a paranormal investigator (Jasmine Jaye) in hot pursuit. He’s also glad that the film portrayed Carrie as somewhat more challenging than she was in De Palma’s film. Although I think the TV movie gets it wrong in many ways, I agree with Fuller that star Angela Pettis is absolutely fantastic as a completely different kind of Carrie White.

The most notable difference between De Palma’s adaptation and Fuller’s adaptation is the plot. While De Palma and Cohen simplified the novel, Fuller adapted the choppy structure from King’s novel. It basically tries to imitate the news clipping formula found in the book, which doesn’t really work in a condensed two-hour narrative. But it’s useful! If the best that can be said about Fuller’s “Carrie” is that it boasts a stunning performance from Pettis and serves as a lesson in poor adaptation in being too sincere, it’s a much better spectacle than the shambling TV movie. Deal with what “The Shining” has to offer. And if you think we’re done with Carrie, /BJ Colangelo thinks of the movie We are still waiting for the first proper adaptation.