[2017 Rings images courtesy Paramount; 2005 Rings DVD image – author’s collection]
January 2017 saw Paramount release a new trailer for Rings before the horror movie’s latest release date of February 3. Judged solely on the trailer, the latest installment in the Ring series doesn’t look too bad.
So far, so good.
But for a movie that is on its fourth scheduled release date since 2015, expectations might be a bit… low. As the Slashfilm article announcing the last delayed release stated, “The Ring franchise threequel, Rings seems to be really struggling its way to theaters. Rings was originally set to hit theaters in November 2015, then April 2016, then October 2016.”
Described by the studio as a “new chapter” in the franchise, Rings sound a lot like the 2005 short film Rings. Set in-between 2002’s The Ring and 2005’s The Ring 2, “The film focuses on a boy named Jake as he joins a “ring” of teenagers who have watched the tape.” The end of the short film ties into the beginning of The Ring 2. The full length film stars Matilda Lutz as a young woman named Julia, who (according to Paramount) “becomes worried about her boyfriend when he explores a dark subculture surrounding a mysterious videotape.” Major difference between the two versions besides running time? Um … Jack is now named Jake.
If you can find it, the 2005 solo version DVD release of Rings packs more genuine scares and dread into its 15 minute run time than The Ring 2 manages in one hour and 50 minutes (the DVD release of The Ring 2 included Rings as a bonus feature – if you don’t want to watch it on You Tube).
Despite the many delays in its release schedule, Rings may be an interesting (and hopefully scary) relaunch of the Ring franchise – if it stays true to the short movie with the same title.
For a creepy, fun look inside the Rings phenomenon, check out She-Is-Here.com – the “related films” link is especially helpful regarding the many books and movies in the Ring circle. The official Rings site on tumblr has some great images, but not much else.