#1 ·
So, word on the street is that the third installment of *The Ring* franchise is officially slated for an April Fools' Day release—April 1st, 2015, to be precise. Given the nature of the franchise, I can’t decide if that date is a genuine scheduling decision or just one massive, cinematic practical joke played on the audience. Either way, it's hard to take it entirely seriously.
🍿
I have to say, one detail from the crew really stuck in my mind—they’ve listed Guillermo del Toro as an executive producer. 😉 It looks like Leonard from *The Big Bang Theory* is about to land one of those major roles—and honestly, after all these years, I can’t say I blame him for seeking out a bigger spotlight. Johnny GaleckiHe’s set to play the professor alongside our leads, Matilda Lutz and Alex Roe. Here is the full cast list for those interested: I was scrolling through the credits for the 2016 version of *Rings* on IMDb—just one of those late-night rabbit holes where you end up questioning your life choices—and it got me thinking about how these remakes always seem to struggle with finding their soul. It’s a fascinating, if somewhat exhausting, study in how Hollywood tries to polish away the grit that made the original works actually unsettling. The cast list is extensive, of course, but looking at the names doesn't really tell you much about whether they captured that specific sense of dread. You see all these talented actors listed, yet there’s often this disconnect between the performers and the direction—a feeling that everyone is just going through the motions of a horror script rather than inhabiting a nightmare. It’s a bit like watching a high-budget remake of a classic noir film; you have all the right lighting and the expensive camera rigs, but the atmosphere feels manufactured rather than earned. It makes you wonder if the industry is more interested in the "brand" of a horror franchise than the actual art of being scary. We see it constantly in the US market—taking a proven concept, slapping a recognizable title on it, and hoping the nostalgia does the heavy lifting. But for those of us who prefer something with a bit more substance, these polished productions can feel remarkably hollow..
There’s also that little short film from 2005 called *Rings*—which, for anyone trying to make sense of the timeline, serves as the connective tissue between the first and second installments of *The Ring*. Honestly, though? It’s a bit of a mess. They basically just slapped the same title on it, which feels like a lazy oversight rather than anything intentional. Just a total screw-up on their part. 👎)
Regarding the Japanese versions—I haven’t sat through every single one of them—but from what I gather, their *Ring Two* felt like an entirely different beast compared to the American remake. It was almost a different script altogether. They also had that *Ring Zero* entry, which I haven't caught yet, along with several other spin-offs loosely based on the original novel cycle. Then you’ve got the South Korean adaptations, plus all the various prequels, sequels, and whatever else they decide to churn out. Honestly? It’s a bit of a mess. 😵
Basically, the American version is stripped down to just four films—it’s just the original *Ring*, *Rings*, *Ring 2*, and then this upcoming *Rings* installment they're working on. Simple as that. *sigh*
The upcoming supernatural psychological horror flick—previously going by the title *The Ring 3D*—is finally starting to take shape. It’s being helmed by F. Javier Gutiérrez, with a screenplay penned by the likes of David Loucka, Jacob Aaron Estes, and Akiva Goldsman. For those keeping track, this marks the third installment in the American franchise that traces its lineage back to the original Japanese *Ringu* films, following in the footsteps of both *The Ring* and *The Ring Two*.Wikipedia—the digital behemoth that everyone loves to hate, yet somehow, we can't live without it. It’s become the unofficial backbone of the modern internet, a massive, sprawling collective of information that feels both incredibly empowering and deeply unsettling at the same time. You go there for a quick fact about a historical figure or a specific scientific concept, and before you know it, you’ve fallen down a three-hour rabbit hole involving obscure geopolitical conflicts or the lineage of minor European royalty. There is an undeniable, almost romantic notion behind it—the idea of "the sum of all human knowledge" being curated by volunteers. It sounds noble, doesn't it? A democratic utopia where anyone with an internet connection can contribute to the global record. But then you look closer at the reality of it—the endless edit wars, the subtle biases that creep into certain entries, and the sheer chaos of having thousands of strangers attempting to define truth in real-time. It’s a fragile ecosystem held together by nothing more than community standards and a shared, albeit often contentious, sense of duty. I find myself oscillating between immense respect for its utility and a profound skepticism regarding its reliability. We rely on it so heavily that we’ve almost forgotten how to verify things independently—we just take the blue links as gospel. It is a fascinating, messy, beautiful disaster of a platform, serving as both a brilliant tool for learning and a cautionary tale about the complexities of crowdsourced authority in the digital age.)
🍿
There’s been plenty of chatter suggesting this film might serve as a prequel, but Gutierrez has already shut that down—it’s simply not the case. In reality, the story picks up thirteen years after the original events of *The Ring*.
I have to say, one detail from the crew really stuck in my mind—they’ve listed Guillermo del Toro as an executive producer. 😉 It looks like Leonard from *The Big Bang Theory* is about to land one of those major roles—and honestly, after all these years, I can’t say I blame him for seeking out a bigger spotlight. Johnny GaleckiHe’s set to play the professor alongside our leads, Matilda Lutz and Alex Roe. Here is the full cast list for those interested: I was scrolling through the credits for the 2016 version of *Rings* on IMDb—just one of those late-night rabbit holes where you end up questioning your life choices—and it got me thinking about how these remakes always seem to struggle with finding their soul. It’s a fascinating, if somewhat exhausting, study in how Hollywood tries to polish away the grit that made the original works actually unsettling. The cast list is extensive, of course, but looking at the names doesn't really tell you much about whether they captured that specific sense of dread. You see all these talented actors listed, yet there’s often this disconnect between the performers and the direction—a feeling that everyone is just going through the motions of a horror script rather than inhabiting a nightmare. It’s a bit like watching a high-budget remake of a classic noir film; you have all the right lighting and the expensive camera rigs, but the atmosphere feels manufactured rather than earned. It makes you wonder if the industry is more interested in the "brand" of a horror franchise than the actual art of being scary. We see it constantly in the US market—taking a proven concept, slapping a recognizable title on it, and hoping the nostalgia does the heavy lifting. But for those of us who prefer something with a bit more substance, these polished productions can feel remarkably hollow..
There’s also that little short film from 2005 called *Rings*—which, for anyone trying to make sense of the timeline, serves as the connective tissue between the first and second installments of *The Ring*. Honestly, though? It’s a bit of a mess. They basically just slapped the same title on it, which feels like a lazy oversight rather than anything intentional. Just a total screw-up on their part. 👎)
Regarding the Japanese versions—I haven’t sat through every single one of them—but from what I gather, their *Ring Two* felt like an entirely different beast compared to the American remake. It was almost a different script altogether. They also had that *Ring Zero* entry, which I haven't caught yet, along with several other spin-offs loosely based on the original novel cycle. Then you’ve got the South Korean adaptations, plus all the various prequels, sequels, and whatever else they decide to churn out. Honestly? It’s a bit of a mess. 😵
Basically, the American version is stripped down to just four films—it’s just the original *Ring*, *Rings*, *Ring 2*, and then this upcoming *Rings* installment they're working on. Simple as that. *sigh*