Verbinski replaced for DW's Ring 2; Pirates II instead?

[Jake Lipson]

ComingSoon.net reveals that DreamWorks is moving forward with The Ring 2, hiring commercials director Noam Murro to helm the second installment of the horror hit, which Naomi Watts will once again topline. The studio is preparing to start filming The Ring sequel in January, aiming to release the film in November, 2004.

<b>Murro replaces Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl), who directed the first film</b>, which generated $129 million at the domestic box office, and an additional $120 million overseas.

The sequel will bring back Watts and David Dorfman, as well as screenwriter Ehren Kruger. The plot is being kept tightly under wraps at the studio. Murro caught the attention of DreamWorks executives with a darkly toned "Got Milk?" commercial he directed for the California Milk Processor Board that features a boy who can predict unfortunate future events.

Now, I haven't seen The Ring, but do you guys think this has anything to do with Verbinski being contracted for Pirates of the Carribbean II? If it does, then that means the Pirates sequel would likely get a start soon, if it leaves him unfree to do a movie that DreamWorks want out by November 2004. And yet, I can't see the Pirates franchise being anything other than a big summer movie, so it will probably be at least 2005 or 2006 before we see it grace the silver screen.

Thoughts?

[BasilOfBakerStreet427]

POTC II will be awesome,Ring 2 will be nothing but a straight-to-video horror movie with "Got Milk?" commerical director.

[Maerj]

The Ring was based off of a Japanese film, Ringu, which was a trilogy in Japan, so they already have a story if they base it off of the original films. The first Ring was excellent, so hopefully the second will be just as good.

I also really don't consider The Ring to be a horror film as much as I would consider it to be more of a mystery/suspense movie with some supernatural overtones. Hehe!

[STASHONE]

The Ring was the most overhyped ridiculous movie I've seen all year.

[2099net]

The Ring was based off of a Japanese film, Ringu, which was a trilogy in Japan, so they already have a story if they base it off of the original films. The first Ring was excellent, so hopefully the second will be just as good.

I also really don't consider The Ring to be a horror film as much as I would consider it to be more of a mystery/suspense movie with some supernatural overtones. Hehe!

Well, from the casting it sounds like the US Ring 2 won't be anything like the Japanese Ring 2 (which is good, because for all of you who complain about The Ring being incomprehensible - it wasn't by the way- the Japanese Ring 2 is totally incomprehensible - but has some of the best "shock" moments of the franchise).

The ending of the US Ring sort of hinted at a different direction for the US sequel now that Samara was apparently "let out" and "more powerful than ever".

I hope Dreamworks do get around to making their own version of Ring 0: Birthday though. Unlike most people I really do like this film. In some respects it's more of a love story than a horror film and is really quite tragic. The real "monsters" are the normal humans and their quest for vengence and fear of the unknown.

And yes, I do prefer Sadako to Samara. But the US Ring had many good innovations. I just feel Samara was much less scary than Sadako - Sadako's walk is just so freaky (and it's origin is explained in Ring 0). Imagine if the Dreamworks version copied her walk, but emphasised it via CGI - now that would give me the willies!

[BasilOfBakerStreet427]

Samara is NOT the villian.It's her father!

[2099net]

I beg to differ.

Samara is fully aware of what she is doing, and what's more she enjoys doing it. What's clever is she presents the apperence of having no control over her powers (rather like a child and poltergist activity). It really is a clever little film, and in some respects the narrative and twists are much superior to the Japanese original, including this ongoing mis-footing of the audience. It makes the final twist at the end much superior.

Witness the video from the insititute, the doctor says something along the lines of "Yes you do, but you don't want to hurt her anymore, do you? You don't want to hurt anyone..." and Samara replys "But I do, and I'm sorry. It won't stop."

Upon first viewing this is taken as Samara apologising for the wierdness she is causing, but watch it again and note the tone and delivery of Samara's reply.

When shje says "But I do." she means "Yes, I do want to hurt people", not "But I do it anyway". and "I'm sorry, It won't stop" means she's going to continue doing it. They show this scene twice in the movie, including at the end when "the truth" is revealed. There's a reason for showing it again - it reveals the twist ending - see how it takes on a whole new meaning the second time... When it's revealed that Samara wasn't supposed to be "released" and by releasing her from the well Rachel has made the situation worse, as the boy says at the end "You weren't supposed to help her. She never sleeps." ("sleeps" as in "die"). Samara was the evil all along, and Rachel has set the evil 'free'.

Sadly, the climax with Samara just doesn't compare to the Sadako scene in the original. I watched that on my own late at night (the wife wasn't interested) and it did give me the creeps. The whole thing was done with crude effects, but was so much more effective. Everything from the jerky, painful disjointed walk, the crawling from the television along the floor with the nail less hands to the final spooky 'fish eye' stare is totally inhuman. All Samara was was a little girl (which again was a good innovation, but it wasn't pushed to the limits like it should have been).