Rabid Fans Howl With Rage As Netflix Sets To Adapt Stephen King’s Classic, ‘Cujo’
A large pack of online horror hounds are foaming at the mouth, and they have a bone to pick with Netflix. First reported by Deadline last Tuesday, the streaming service announced plans to make a feature film adaptation of Stephen King’s bestselling 1981 novel, Cujo.
RELATED: ‘Jaws’ Reemerges From The Deep For 50th Anniversary With Theatrical Rerelease & New Merchandise
Along with producer Roy Lee (Barbarian, that terrible live-action Death Note, the even more abysmal Poltergeist remake, and too many American remakes of international horror films to even name), this will be their fifth trip to horror master’s overpopulated well of nightmares (Gerald’s Game, 1922, Mr. Harrigan’s Phone, In The Tall Grass). However, there’s still no word yet on a release date.
The response has been mixed, but with a loud, exasperated groan from a large portion of the audience who has had enough of the constant remakes, reboots, reimaginings, and redistributing that infects the world of modern film (especially the Horror genre), but before we get into their weary barks of disapproval, allow me to tell you a story.
RELATED: ‘Doctor Sleep’ Director Mike Flanagan And Stephen King Team Up Again For Amazon’s ‘Carrie’ Series
Once upon a time, not so long ago, a monster lived in the small fictional town of Castle Rock, Maine. This creature went on a ravenous murder spree that claimed the lives of several innocent souls, and it left a crimson-colored stain on the already sordid history of that doomed New England soil. No, I’m not talking about infamous serial killer cop, Frank Dodd.
This is about the Chambers’ family dog, Cujo. A loyal Saint Bernard who always tried to be a good boy, fate had other plans when he stuck his big furry muzzle into the wrong hole while pursuing a rabbit, and contracted rabies from a bat scratch on the nose. Cujo’s fever escalated to a feral bloodlust, and this spelled death for all those whose scent he caught with his infected nose.
The novel was a huge success (even if King doesn’t remember writing it), and Warner Bros. adapted it into a film in 1983 that stars American Horror Goddess, Dee Wallace (The Hills Have Eyes, The Howling, Critters, The Frighteners, The Lords of Salem). The movie had a modest run at the box office and became a hit on VHS, but it’s also the most triggering piece of film for dog lovers since Old Yeller. (Yeah, I hate that movie too.)
RELATED: ‘Salem’s Lot’ Review – This Vampire Flick Could Have Stayed In The Grave
As expected, a lot of horror fans expressed their discontent over yet another retread of another classic story that doesn’t need to be retold. Aside from those few who are excited about the upcoming movie (and bless their hearts), the rest is loud, and clear:
“The dog is gonna be 99.9% CGI awful,” laments @TheDankHill on X
“a cellphone would’ve ended this movie in 10 min,” is a point made by @YoungSeven that is not without validity.
“It’s obvious,” @jor9968 states (according to Google translate). “they can’t think of a single f—king idea to make movies, huh?”
For those who have never read the book or seen the original movie, you might want to skip the next few paragraphs because we are about to enter Spoiler City. One difference between the two is that the book ends with the young boy, Tad Trenton, dying from heatstroke while trapped in the car with his mother and Cujo tries bashing his way inside. The movie ends with him surviving (even though Tad is actually dead).
The story’s conclusion is heartbreaking enough without Donna Trenton going home without her son (who’s still dead), and it’s also a moment where Stephen King’s dark humor really comes to vicious life in his writing (despite the fact that Tad is still dead!). If there is any good reason to change a part of a story when adapting it to film, that’s one most people would have a much easier time accepting, but then there are the ones who want to see it the way the author intended.
The reason why they want this varies by individual (none of which are good), and it wouldn’t be surprising if they also want to see a certain part from the IT novel play out onscreen (don’t ask!), but it’s obvious that some want to see this kid get put down. “Keep true to the book and have the kid die,” judges @Randguvar82.
“Then they should make the ending just like the book which is way more depressing and scary!” @russelschick declares.
As Hollywood continues to cry “Havoc!” while unleashing the dogs of homogenous reiteration, the voices of countless horror writers go unheard. Some of them have more original things to say, but it’s pointless to go barking up that tree. The original movie is available for free on Pluto, and the novel is available at a reasonable price at Thriftbooks, for those who wish to see if Tad is still dead.
Here’s the trailer for the 1983 film:
More About:Movie News