Mike Flanagan on CARRIE adaptation strategy
by Anjali Filmi: Mike Flanagan
Mike Flanagan explains that retelling CARRIE exactly as it was done before offered no value since prior versions were definitive. He identifies two adaptation paths: faithful preservation versus deconstruction and reconstruction, a method he previously applied to Hill House and Usher. Before moving forward with Stephen King's work, he secured explicit permission because the story had been told perfectly multiple times. All parties agreed that changing the narrative was the sole justification for producing this new series. Flanagan states they cannot do better than De Palma but aims to create a different experience.
Transcript (en)
There's really two types of adaptation. There's the kind where you're trying to just faithfully protect what's on the page as best you can. And then there's the other kind I've gotten to do in my career with Hill House and Usher, where you take something apart and you build something new. I've never dared to try to do something like that with Stephen King. Never. In this particular case, it wasn't about permission from myself. I needed his permission. I wanted him to know exactly what we were going to do, or I never would have entertained doing it. But there There was no point in retelling the story as it had been told, because it had been told pretty perfectly and then told several times after that. And Stephen King was very aware of that. You know, we all had the same question at the beginning, which was why, why do this again? So in this particular case, it wasn't about finding permission to make changes. I think all of us agreed at the beginning, changing it was the only reason to do it. There was no point in just adapting it the way it had been adapted before. We're not gonna do better than De Palma, but we can do different.
