Mike Flanagan’s ‘Carrie’: What’s in an Adaptation?

Carrie was the first novel published by Stephen King in 1974. It launched a career that has lasted to this day, countless novels, novellas and short story collections published by this one man (and sometimes his alias, Richard Bachman). His presence in the horror media has had an undeniable impact, whether it’s better or for worse is up to you.

When it was announced that Mike Flanagan (creator of the Netflix series The Haunting of Hill House) was taking on a modern version of Carrie, so many people were excited. Two horror icons teaming up yet again, ready to bring Carrie White out of the looming shadows cast by King’s other novels and back into the prom queen spotlight. What could go wrong?

From the sounds of it, a lot.

---

Image by Amazon Prime Video

I really have no issues with the idea of bringing Carrie into a modern era. The story itself is timeless; a plain girl with an upbringing that can only be described as ‘different’ is relentlessly bullied because of it. King has spoken about the two girls that inspired Carrie previously, and it’s a character that people can potentially relate to in one way or another (maybe not the telekinesis and pig’s blood bit). Now with social media impacting teenagers more than ever, to the point that Australia and the UK have banned it for under-16 year olds, it makes complete perfect sense to bring this character to the present.

There is a case to be made for hiring another standard ‘pretty’ girl for the role of Carrie. Though she is described as not so pretty, maybe just plain and a bit chubby, honestly I think if any girl drops to her knees and starts praying in the middle of lunch, kids are going to be relentlessly cruel regardless of their appearance. Would it be nice to see someone different, someone who maybe doesn’t fit the generic mold of a TV star? Sure. It’s a safe choice, but after the rest of the ‘teases’ Flanagan revealed, it’s the only safe choice they made.

Now the question we have is, how much can you adapt before it becomes completely different to the IP itself?

Image by Amazon Prime Video

Maragret White in the book is a woman resentful of her daughter, who offers no space and no sanctuary for poor Carrie. A religious fanatic, any time Carrie is deemed to make a mistake, even one that biologically Carrie can’t help, she throws her into a cupboard surrounded by religious idols, all of them staring down at her as Carrie cries and begs to be let out. She believes her daughter is possessed by the devil, and even when Carrie has been humiliated in front of her peers at prom, Margaret offers no sympathy, instead trying to kill her.

Granted, Carrie has decimated a lot of the town by that point, but that’s by the by.

Mike Flanagan has described his Margaret White as someone who ‘fiercely loves her daughter and wants to protect her from this world.’

Really?

Image by Amazon Prime Video

I’m all for character glow-ups, really I am. Isn’t the point of Carrie’s life that it’s so utterly relentless? There is no escape, there is no safe place, there is no hope for her, and yet she has it regardless? She hopes tomorrow will be a better day, she hopes her mama will understand what she’s going through, she hopes she has a good time at the prom. None of those hopes come into fruition and Margaret isn’t exempt from that.

It’s what makes the ending of Carrie so spectacularly sad; even after their brutal fight which ends with Carrie killing her, and as Carrie slowly dies herself, she’s crying out for her mama. That’s all she wants, to be loved by her mama and accepted by her peers.

Changing that relationship will change the context of that scene (if it happens, because anything is possible here).

Image by Amazon Prime Video

There’s been a lot of essays regarding the timing of Carrie getting her powers, how it’s an allegory for puberty and rage. From what’s been said, I’m not sure if this will remain the same in the show either, but that remains to be seen, so I won’t speculate. So let’s discuss the introduction of others with powers.

In the book, it’s alluded to that Carrie isn’t the only one to possess this gene, just the only one to use it to fuel a town-wide rampage with hundreds of casualties. The book itself is mixed media, so there’s the normal narrative alongside articles, Sue Snell’s autobiography and transcripts from interviews with classmates. The entire story is insular, everything focused on Carrie in one way or another. Introducing other characters with powers (not even the same powers, it seems) can only do one of two things.

One: It complicates a simple story, with the plot trying to connect everyone together, despite them apparently being all over the world. Either it will introduce one-off characters that we’ll never see again, with the audiences asking the relevance, or it will try to connect them all with one another until we end up with the telekinesis (or whatever powers these characters possess) version of the Avengers. 

Two: It opens up the world beyond Carrie and we get to see people deal with their own version of puberty and how it shapes their lives too. The wider net gives the audience further context into the gene, answering questions that weren’t really answered otherwise and opens up the realm of possibilities for spin-offs (which I’m sure Amazon would love, and something Flanagan has already mentioned, saying the series is not a “finite story.”) 

I don’t completely hate the idea of exploring the world beyond Carrie, especially as King alluded to such a thing in his original novel. The main concern is that potential one-off characters overshadow the actual story, Carrie becoming secondary in her life.

Image by Amazon Prime Video

While the core event seems to remain the same (I don’t think I need to say what this is), Flanagan has teased some differences. From the looks of the trailer, it looks like Carrie will confront someone about the way they treated her. There are only two options I can think of.

Option 1 is Sue Snell. In the book, she asks her boyfriend to go to the prom with Carrie; it’s not a secret plot to get her for the sake of the prank, it’s because she feels genuinely bad about joining in on the opening scene bullying. At the end of the book, she’s the one who stays with Carrie as she dies. It would make perfect sense that this monologue would be directed at Sue.

Option 2 is Chris Hargensen, essentially the mastermind behind all of Carrie’s torturous bullying. Not taking accountability for the mocking and tampons the girls locker room threw at Carrie, Chris is banned from senior prom (a death sentence to someone like her), and even her dad can’t get her out of it. Misplacing the blame onto Carrie, she concocts the pig blood prank and well… the rest is history.

In the book, Carrie doesn’t give herself a chance to accost Chris, killing her off pretty quickly given how much pain she had put her through. From the looks of the trailer, how the monologue is over shots of Chris and Carrie, it looks like she’ll get that chance. There’s also a brief snapshot of what may be a mugshot of Chris, possibly alluding to her survival.

Is that better in the long run? Maybe. Maybe it’ll be good for Carrie to stand up to those who tormented her beyond the blind-rage slaughter she subjects the town to. Maybe it’ll bring the story together more rather than pure, unbridled chaos. There is something to be said about Chris having such a small death in comparison, that despite the pain she dealt out, in the end she becomes a footnote.

Image by Amazon Prime Video

I’m not a book to screen purist. I completely understand why changes are made when adapting them; sometimes what’s easily written down can’t be transcribed onto visual media. Whether its budget concerns or pacing issues (Peter Jackson famously made the decision to keep Tom Bombadil out of his Lord of the Rings adaptation because it would have just slowed everything down), it’s not something that inherently bothers me.

It bothers me when the fundamental arcs of the book are changed for the screen, making it essentially something entirely different but with the same name, something I find Flanagan to be guilty of looking at his previous works (The Haunting series). It feels like it’s creating an original piece of work but slapping an IP against it so it gets sold to the highest bidder.

Flanagan has said that it wouldn’t be worthwhile to retread old ground by mimicking Brian De Palma’s 1976 film, and I do agree with this; why recreate something that has already been done, even if that is what Hollywood seems to be leaning towards nowadays. I’ve also said there’s a lot of changes that honestly don’t bother me, but the ones that do seem to be centred in the relationships Carrie has with others. Margaret, Chris, Sue and potentially brand new characters. Changing this, to me, changes the journey Carrie goes on, even if the events to get there are the same.

Maybe it’ll be a good thing; maybe there will be strength we haven’t seen from this character before. It’s just hard to compare the upcoming show with the book and think they’re two sides of the same coin, both improving the other, when they seem to be two completely separate entities.

I hope I’m proved wrong. I love this novel a lot and I believe there’s so much potential with what Flanagan has shared. Whether it’ll be realised is another thing entirely.

---

Where to Watch Carrie?

Image by Amazon Prime Video

Carrie is set to premiere on Amazon Prime Video on October 7, 2026. You can check out the full trailer for Mike Flanagan’s adaptation here.

See also: The Best Horror Movies of 2026 (So Far)

• ShareCopied to clipboard
• X
• Facebook