Hellraiser, 'Salem's Lot reboots find their directors in David Bruckner and Gary Dauberman
Aux Features Film
Someday our national nightmare will not be such that we can’t create and enjoy cinematic ones, so, for those who miss shrieking beneath a shower of popcorn in a crowded theater, here’s some good news: The much-discussed Hellraiser reboot and the James Wan-produced adaptation of Stephen King’s ‘Salem’s Lot continue to move forward. Today, The Hollywood Reporter announced that both have found their respective directors.
Batman Begins writer David S. Goyer is producing and helping to develop the story of the new Hellraiser, which will be penned by Super Dark Times writers Ben Collins and Luke Piotrowski and directed by David Bruckner. The trio is on fire following the successful Sundance debut of The Night House, which sold to Searchlight for a whopping $12 million. We weren’t so hot on that one—our review calls it “simultaneously goofy and dull”—but Bruckner directed V/H/S’s “Amateur Night,” which earns him plenty of goodwill. Details are scarce on what the reboot looks like, but the crew at Spyglass Media calls it “loyal, yet evolved,” which is what these reboot people always say.
‘Salem’s Lot, meanwhile, will see its writer promoted to director. It writer Gary Dauberman, who was previously attached to pen the adaptation, made enough of a splash with last year’s Annabelle Comes Home, his directorial debut, to land this job. ‘Salem’s Lot, however, won’t benefit from the jump-scares-above-all-else approach of his Conjuring spin-off (and, well, everything he’s written), as it’s a sprawling, dread-soaked ensemble piece that requires deft plotting and a patient hand. Tobe Hooper’s 1979 miniseries adaptation isn’t perfect, but it at least captured the tone of King’s book. If this looks anything like It: Chapter 2, we’ll be hightailing it back to our coffins halfway through.
13 Comments
I feel like it’s time to just let the Cenobites rest. After the last two installments, I find it unlikely that the franchise is going to improve.
Tossers!
I think it’s a mistake to make Salem’s lot a movie. It’s far too sprawling for that, and much of the impact of the story is its pace, and the slow, methodical way in which the town succumbs. You lose that in the space of a typical feature. It ought to be a miniseries.
I feel like this comment honestly applies to most King adaptations. either you go the sprawling 3-hour route (which can produce dreck like It Chapter 2 or absolute winners like Doctor Sleep Director’s Cut; either way you’re only gonna get diehards sitting through the whole movie) or condense it so much that all the weird character asides and personal touches get lost, and it’s just another horror movie without any of the Kingness. there’s just no way to do most of his classics without giving them the full season treatment.
Just like coronavirus these are things we didn’t want or ask for.
We can add you super-cool and edgy comment to that list.
How do you “reboot” a one-off movie/ book adaptation?
So, the guy on the right: cursed Smurf or colloidal silver true believer?
While I assume the Salem’s Lot “reboot” is actually a new adaptation of the original novel, not a remake or connected to either of the tv mini-series, what about the Hellraiser movie? Is it based only on the novella, a remake of the first two movies, or some other combination? Thanks.
At least Uncle Por-Rica is not making either movie. I question the necessity of remaking them at all, nevertheless. It should be called “roboting” instead of “rebooting,” in that robots mindlessly, lifelessly and soullessly imitate human behaviour.
Don’t have a Hellraiser remake. Ugh
Despite being a lifelong horror fan, I avoided reading Clive Barker for years due to some misguided notion that I knew what his writing was about (mainly gratuitous sex and gratuitous violence tossed together in faux-edgy package) and it wouldn’t be for me. After some glowing recommendations though, I finally started working my way through the Books of Blood and have been absolutely blown away so far. There has not been a bad story in the bunch. While it certainly is all the things I thought it would be, it’s also so so much more. Barker’s prose is beautiful and the horrors he conjures up are chilling and incredibly imaginative. While the last 20 years or so have seen his star diminish due to decreased output and quality of output, as well as poor adaptations of his work, he absolutely deserves a spot in the pantheon of horror greats. Point being, while the first Hellraiser movie is probably second only to Candyman in matching the tone of Barker’s writing, it’s by no means a perfect movie. Plus any new film adaptation will bring eyeballs to the source material, which is only a good thing. Also, stop what you’re doing and go read ‘In the Hills, the Cities.’