“Classic”: a fitting description for a story that popular culture cannot seem to leave alone.
Since the novel’s 1974 publication, Stephen King’s “Carrie” has repeatedly been resurrected for the screen, with adaptations in 1976, 2002, 2013, and, most recently, 2026 — with Mike Flanagan’s Amazon Prime miniseries, which premiered on Oct. 7. With King himself on board as an executive producer, Flanagan’s “Carrie” is the first television adaptation of the novel — and perhaps the most expansive reimagining yet.
At its core, “Carrie” (2026) is still the story that audiences all know: an isolated teenage girl is tormented by her classmates and controlled by her religious mother, and is then plunged into a world of violence and vengeance when she discovers that she possesses telekinetic abilities. But after nearly five decades and three previous screen adaptations, the question is now inevitable: How many times can audiences experience Carrie’s story before there is nothing new left to say?
For some, Flanagan’s series risks feeling like an unnecessary rehashing of a story that has already been told enough times, serving as yet another example of the remake fatigue of modern day film and television. Others, however, see value in revisiting a story whose ending is already ingrained in popular culture. Personally, I tend to lean toward the latter — Flanagan’s adaptation, to me, does an impressive job at putting a unique spin on Carrie’s story while still preserving its underlying themes. There is a strong sense of familiarity and comfort in watching the unfolding of a story that you already know the ending to, and I believe that Flanagan both utilizes and amplifies this. His version, in my opinion, adds original elements that do not outshine but instead enhance the heart of King’s story.
Flanagan also differentiates his version by bringing the story into the digital era, where the cruelty of high school no longer ends at the final bell. Social media gives Carrie’s tormentors a new way to reach her, transforming King’s story of adolescent isolation into one about the permanence and reach of cyberbullying and online humiliation.
This aspect seems to have gained wide praise from critics. For instance, Saloni Gajjar from The A.V. Club calls Flanagan’s adaptation a “modern makeover befitting our digital age and proving the enduring themes of King’s book.” Furthermore, many fans seem to appreciate the seamlessness in which the classic has been updated for a contemporary audience, which is something that is not typically executed as successfully in television. Shows such as “Hollywood Arts” (2026), for instance, have drawn criticism for relying on forced humor, heavy-handed cultural commentary and an overly self-aware approach to modernization. Yet early reactions to Flanagan’s “Carrie” suggest that he has largely avoided these common pitfalls, integrating modern technology and the realities of online harassment in a way that feels organic to the story rather than tacked on for supposed fan service.
“Carrie” (2026) features 22-year-old Canadian actress Summer H. Howell as its leading lady. Howell skillfully portrays the infamous Carrietta White with a curious, earnest, and innocent demeanor that has endeared her to many viewers, while effectively making the character’s continuous suffering and eventual breakdown all the more tragic. Her portrayal has been greatly praised for its ability to emphasize the vulnerability and naivety that Flanagan’s take on the character was intended to evoke.
However, some fans have argued that, despite Howell’s impressive performance, her conventional attractiveness makes her a less convincing representation of Carrie. While each actress who has portrayed Carrietta White across the various adaptations has brought her own individual strengths and interpretations to the character, many fans have noted that they share a notable similarity: They have all been conventionally attractive and slender. This creates an interesting tension with King’s original depiction of Carrie in his novel as a “chunky girl with pimples on her neck and back” — or in other words, definitely not someone who meets society’s beauty standards.
King also writes Carrie to be extremely off-putting in the social aspect, as she tends to project some of the religion-based hatred that her mother has instilled in her onto other people at school, making it easier for readers to understand why other students bully her. In Flanagan’s adaptation, however, much of this characterization is largely absent, causing many fans to believe that, in the words of film analyst and YouTuber Tommy Ross, “New ‘Carrie’ missed the point.” For some fans, Howell’s casting reflects a broader departure from what made Carrie such an unconventional protagonist in the first place. By softening both her physical awkwardness and her social abrasiveness, Flanagan arguably presents a more sympathetic Carrie — but one that some viewers feel loses the uncomfortable qualities that made the character so distinctive.
Yet another way in which Flanagan’s “Carrie” deviates from previous adaptations is its ending, and how it seems to indicate future seasons of the show and deliberately serve as an extension of the Stephen King universe as a whole.
Spoilers ahead!
In the original novel, as well as the 1976, 2002, and 2013 film adaptations, Carrie White is stabbed by her mother, Margaret, and dies. This demise has typically been the end of Carrie’s story, likely due to the fact that, being King’s debut novel, “Carrie” preceded the broader lore of his literary universe, making connections to them impossible.
However, now that the King universe has grown into a web of characters, locations, supernatural forces, and parallel worlds, “Carrie” no longer has to exist in isolation. Characters and elements from works such as “The Dark Tower,” “The Stand,” “Insomnia,” “It,” and “The Shining” all intersect to create a larger multiverse. Flanagan — who is already a seasoned hand at adapting King’s work, having already produced “Gerald’s Game” (2017), “Doctor Sleep” (2019), and “The Life of Chuck” (2025) — takes advantage of this expansive mythology. Rather than treating Carrie’s death as a conclusion, the series leaves her alive and places her within a much larger supernatural world, suggesting that her abilities may connect her to other concepts within King’s universe.
While much of Flanagan’s audience has shown excitement about his choice and the potential that it presents for later seasons — Ryan Arey of ScreenCrush, for instance, argues that the series “takes advantage of the fact that everyone … already knows the story of Carrie,” using that familiarity to deliver a new ending that sets it apart from previous adaptations — others have reported strong disappointment, particularly with the addition of an original character: Emaline West. While Emaline was intended to help expand Carrie’s story beyond the events of the original novel, many viewers felt that her role ultimately came at the expense of Carrie herself. For instance, Emaline’s influence over Carrie during the story’s climax shifts some of the responsibility for Carrie’s actions from herself, weakening the moral complexity that has made the original story so enduring — and, for some viewers, makes the ending feel less impactful.
Overall, whether “Carrie” (2026) succeeds depends on what audiences want from yet another adaptation of a story they already know. Flanagan clearly has plans beyond simply retelling King’s novel, using the series to modernize its themes and expand its world. At the same time, some of these changes have raised questions about whether expanding the story — and altering it in order to do so — actually improves it.
For better or worse, Flanagan’s “Carrie” proves that there is still something to say about a story nearly fifty years after its original publication — but whether those new ideas are worth revisiting “Carrie” all over again may ultimately depend on the audience.
