View Full Version : "Creature from the black Lagoon" Remake?
The Bat
May 6, '08, 7:31 AM
I for one, would LOVE to see a Creature "remake"...with todays Special Effects...just as long as the Creature "LOOKS" like the Creature! It's a perfect design...so They'd better not mess with it!:enraged:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36610
Bo8a_Fett
May 6, '08, 7:51 AM
Good idea but you know they WILL change it...and not for the better.
Werewolf
May 6, '08, 11:31 AM
They've been threatening a Creature remake for years and years now.
All the Creature design concepts and scripts I have seen have been terrible. But after seeing Rick Baker's terrific make up design for the Wolfman remake, I'm feeling a little more positive a Creature remake could be done right.
HardyGirl
May 6, '08, 12:13 PM
NOOOOO!! (runs screaming from the room!)
palitoy
May 6, '08, 2:07 PM
I don't really mind the idea of remaking CFTBL but every concept sketch of the proposed creech has really bothered me. Not only because I think the original one is pretty timeless (still creeps my wife out) but because they were just somewhat unmemorable.
I have more hope nowadays though, that they could do it right.
Earth 2 Chris
May 6, '08, 2:20 PM
The creature design was way ahead of its time and truly frightening. It looked inhuman, yet human enough to be disturbing. Much like Karloff's original Frankenstein monster make-up, I don't think they could design anything better now. If they just reiinterpret the original slightly, it could work. If they start all over, just give it another name. We don't need another crappy Godzilla-type remake.
Chris
Werewolf
May 6, '08, 2:30 PM
Here's a link to some previous Creature remake concepts.
The Creature from the Black Lagoon (TBA) : Multimedia (http://countingdown.com/movies/1034742/multimedia)
And as you can see, they are all quite horrid. I agree with Palitoy that the original Creature design is timeless. I personally feel it is one of the best if not the best Monster designs ever and any remake needs to stay true to it.
Otherwise it's just not the Creature.
madmarva
May 6, '08, 4:29 PM
That movie Anaconda basically was a Creature remake substituting the snakes for Blackie.
It has many of the same shots.
Of course, I'd love to see a true updated Creature of the Black Lagoon movie, thought.
palitoy
May 6, '08, 6:03 PM
Jaws 3D was originally slated as a remake of "Revenge of the Creature"
misterdroid
May 6, '08, 10:04 PM
I for one, would LOVE to see a Creature "remake"...with todays Special Effects...just as long as the Creature "LOOKS" like the Creature! It's a perfect design...so They'd better not mess with it!:enraged:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36610
You would almost certainly see a horrible new creature. He'd either have Hollywood generic "monster face" (that wide nostril animal look all vampires and creatures have now) or would have the lame "creature from another place" look (Cloverfield springs to mind... loved the movie, hated the monster design)
I would assume he'd end up being more human than not, since the Creature is just a big 'ol lovelorn softy and you would want people to identify with him. It's hard to identify with a space bug.
toys2cool
May 6, '08, 11:21 PM
as long as it looks some what like the original i'd be happy :grin:
DocDrako
May 7, '08, 3:03 AM
...We don't need another crappy Godzilla-type remake.
Chris
Exactly.
:terror:
The Bat
May 7, '08, 4:43 AM
as long as it looks some what like the original i'd be happy :grin:
Hey....that was THE first thing I said!!:grin::yes:
Bo8a_Fett
May 7, '08, 4:45 AM
Here's a link to some previous Creature remake concepts.
The Creature from the Black Lagoon (TBA) : Multimedia (http://countingdown.com/movies/1034742/multimedia)
And as you can see, they are all quite horrid. I agree with Palitoy that the original Creature design is timeless. I personally feel it is one of the best if not the best Monster designs ever and any remake needs to stay true to it.
Otherwise it's just not the Creature.
Didn't McFarlan toys bring out a creature based on these designs a few years back...along with "updated" (re crap) versions of Frankenstein's laboratory, Hunchback, werewolf etc?
I actually never much cared for the original CFTBL (thought is was really boring)
Hopefully a remake will be better
Bo8a_Fett
May 7, '08, 7:09 AM
I actually never much cared for the original CFTBL (thought is was really boring)
Hopefully a remake will be better
BLASPHEMER!!! KILL THE HERETIC!!!
It was like the most boring monster movie EVER !!!!!!! :smiley1:
thunderbolt
May 7, '08, 9:41 AM
^^^ Never saw the Creeping Terror have you? :)
>It was like the most boring monster movie EVER !!!!!!!
You're only saying that 'cos you've never seen "It Waits."
Dunno how I feel about a remake of the Creature. One of the biggest problems is that the story is really generic nowadays. Not that the original was a hack job; but it's been remade and ripped off so many times over the decades that a new version is gonna seem really old hat to a modern audience.
And I can see tham slapping the name over the generic monster movie. "Explorers in the Amazon track down a half human half fish monser for the government, who want to make it into the ultimate soldier/use it's dna for experiemnts/use it as a biological weapon."
Only our brave teen hero can save us!
*sigh*
Don C.
Bo8a_Fett
May 7, '08, 9:53 AM
Plus at least one of the explorer's is a hot babe who may/may not disrobe during the course of the film .....with hilarious conciquences....proberly
thunderbolt
May 7, '08, 10:13 AM
^^^ Like this one? Sure it was the 50's, so she didn't totally get nekkid, but wowsers!!:drool_y:
http://www.horror-wood.com/valen.jpg
Vortigern99
May 7, '08, 2:40 PM
Here's a link to some previous Creature remake concepts.
The Creature from the Black Lagoon (TBA) : Multimedia (http://countingdown.com/movies/1034742/multimedia)
And as you can see, they are all quite horrid. I agree with Palitoy that the original Creature design is timeless. I personally feel it is one of the best if not the best Monster designs ever and any remake needs to stay true to it.
Otherwise it's just not the Creature.
The green-hued pic on the far right of the above-linked page is actually quite close to the original, but a little creepier, plus a Wolfman-like underbite and snaggly fangs. I could accept a remake that featured this one, or something similar.
palitoy
May 7, '08, 3:16 PM
I think most of those designs miss the quasi human element of the original creech that made him creepy. They all just look like CGI clones of that awful Godzilla to me . The only one I'm fond of is the Monster Squad creature.
Don's point about the story rings true, it's been ripped off an awful lot.
Gorn Captain
May 7, '08, 3:37 PM
If I were omnipotent, I'd banish the concept of remake from my kingdom. I love movies from all eras, it just takes a while to get into the mood of the time it was made in.
Whenever I look at the magic of Lon Chaney Sr., I can't help but laugh at all the CGI crap that is around now. Once they made CG good enough so that I don't feel like I'm watching a cartoon, OK, but that's far off.
But sure, people can watch remakes if they want to. As long as I don't have to.
And here's a novel idea: why don't filmmakers of today think of something original?
Now that would be cool...
PS: the original CFTBL was perfect!!!!
Vortigern99
May 7, '08, 3:59 PM
FYI, Todd Browning's Dracula (1931) -- the one with Bela Lugosi -- was itself a remake of the unauthorized 1922 German version of Bram Stoker's novel; Browning's film was based on a stage play rather than on the book itself, which is hardly "original" to begin with. James Whale's 1932 Frankenstein -- the one with Boris Karloff -- was itself a remake of an earlier silent-era Frankenstein film. So it goes with many, many famous films being remakes of earlier films we've now forgotten because the originals simply weren't as good. Many modern so-called "remakes", such as FF Coppolla's Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), are closer in spirit to the source material than the classic original, and are more artful, more cinematic and better crafted in terms of production values, performances, writing, mise-en-scene, cinematography, etc. The day we cease to advance the craft of cinema is the day filmmakers should cease to make "remakes"; but since that hasn't happened yet, I say bring 'em on.
Werewolf
May 7, '08, 4:17 PM
FYI, Todd Browning's Dracula (1931) -- the one with Bela Lugosi -- was itself a remake of the unauthorized 1922 German version of Bram Stoker's novel; Browning's film was based on a stage play rather than on the book itself, which is hardly "original" to begin with. James Whale's 1932 Frankenstein -- the one with Boris Karloff -- was itself a remake of an earlier silent-era Frankenstein film.
The 1931 Dracula was based off the stage play. I disagree with it being a remake of Nosferatu.
Whale's Frankenstein is in no way a remake of the 1910 Edison version. The only simularities are the are both loosely based off of the book.
Coppolla's Dracula is really not any closer to the novel than many of the other versions in my opinion. Old Dracula's design was ridiculous. It also couldn't decide if it wanted to be a gothic romance or a straight foward horror movie. The subplot of Mina being the reincarnated love of Dracula was "borrowed" from the Dan Curtis Dracula with Jack Palance.
On a side note, I feel both Ryder and Reeves were way out of their league and horribly miscast. Oldman and Hopkins were both excellent though.
Vortigern99
May 7, '08, 5:50 PM
I agree with everything you've written above, Werewolf. In my above post, I might have put the word "remake" in quotes, because that is exactly my point: Modern "remakes", to which Gorn Captain was objecting, by and large are not true "remakes" at all, but simply alternate adaptations of the same source material. Granted, a "Creature" remake would be a true "remake", since so far as I know there is no ohter source but the 195? film itself. But my final point still holds: Advances in the craft of cinema offer unending opportunities to re-visit old material, re-cast it with contemporary values and artistry, and shape it for a new generation. I see nothing illegitimate or invalid about this enterprise, as Gorn Captain evidently does.
>Advances in the craft of cinema offer unending opportunities to re-visit old material, re-cast it with contemporary values and artistry, and shape it for a new generation.
Maybe; but too often it's a cheezy way to get name recognition for an otherwise generic film.
>why don't filmmakers of today think of something original?
Wouldn't sell. Like it or no; name recognition is a POWERFUL sales tool.
>Sure it was the 50's, so she didn't totally get nekkid
There was one thing about the original that I thought was interesting. (Although not neccessarily planned by the producers.) The Creature watches her swimming, doing that weird underwater ballet bit, and then becomes infatuated with her. I thought that was interesting 'cos in real life fish use weird dances to entice a mate. ('Course it's usually the male fish.)
Don C.
Vortigern99
May 8, '08, 11:23 AM
After all my defense of re-makes, I must admit there have been some truly awful ones of late in the horror genre. The Fog, The Omen and The Amityville Horror all spring readily and unfortunately to mind. Fog and Omen were near-perfect to begin with (though Donner's Omen tends to induce giggling), and the original Amityville is so silly and cheesy it just doesn't merit another look IMO. That said, I think Snyder's recent Dawn of the Dead was excellent, but it was so different from the Romero original they might have simply called it "Another Zombie Movie: This One's in a Mall" and got away with it.
Continuing in this trend, "they" are discussing re-making Carpenter's The Thing, which is ridiculous because that is a note-perfect film, widely regarded as a horror masterpiece. It would be like remaking The Wizard of Oz or Raiders of the Lost Ark, which, despite my earlier defense of remakes in general, would obviously be unnecessary, egregious and quite likely painful for all involved.
Gorn Captain
May 8, '08, 12:09 PM
I agree with everything you've written above, Werewolf. In my above post, I might have put the word "remake" in quotes, because that is exactly my point: Modern "remakes", to which Gorn Captain was objecting, by and large are not true "remakes" at all, but simply alternate adaptations of the same source material. Granted, a "Creature" remake would be a true "remake", since so far as I know there is no ohter source but the 195? film itself. But my final point still holds: Advances in the craft of cinema offer unending opportunities to re-visit old material, re-cast it with contemporary values and artistry, and shape it for a new generation. I see nothing illegitimate or invalid about this enterprise, as Gorn Captain evidently does.
A good point, I admit. Hm. I think what I most object to, is people using a title just to cash in on the concept. If you want to make a movie about a water creature that attacks helpless ladies in swimwear, why not call it "The Sea Beast Strikes!" and do your own thing, instead of "stealing" a title from a classic (but changing everything else about it)? To be honest, the Emmerich Godzilla was not such a bad giant monster flick, but it had very little to do with Toho Godzilla. Why not call your giant monster Emmerichosaurus Rex, and do your own thing?
A last example: I love the new Galactica, but I find little connection to the old series. I would have been perfectly happy with it being even a little bit farther removed from Classic BG, and being a totally separate entity.
I hope this clarifies my point of view.
Gorn Captain
May 8, '08, 12:11 PM
After all my defense of re-makes, I must admit there have been some truly awful ones of late in the horror genre. The Fog, The Omen and The Amityville Horror all spring readily and unfortunately to mind. Fog and Omen were near-perfect to begin with (though Donner's Omen tends to induce giggling), and the original Amityville is so silly and cheesy it just doesn't merit another look IMO. That said, I think Snyder's recent Dawn of the Dead was excellent, but it was so different from the Romero original they might have simply called it "Another Zombie Movie: This One's in a Mall" and got away with it.
Continuing in this trend, "they" are discussing re-making Carpenter's The Thing, which is ridiculous because that is a note-perfect film, widely regarded as a horror masterpiece. It would be like remaking The Wizard of Oz or Raiders of the Lost Ark, which, despite my earlier defense of remakes in general, would obviously be unnecessary, egregious and quite likely painful for all involved.
Amen to that. I wholeheartedly concur!
Vortigern99
May 8, '08, 12:38 PM
A good point, I admit. Hm. I think what I most object to, is people using a title just to cash in on the concept. If you want to make a movie about a water creature that attacks helpless ladies in swimwear, why not call it "The Sea Beast Strikes!" and do your own thing, instead of "stealing" a title from a classic (but changing everything else about it)? To be honest, the Emmerich Godzilla was not such a bad giant monster flick, but it had very little to do with Toho Godzilla. Why not call your giant monster Emmerichosaurus Rex, and do your own thing?
A last example: I love the new Galactica, but I find little connection to the old series. I would have been perfectly happy with it being even a little bit farther removed from Classic BG, and being a totally separate entity.
I hope this clarifies my point of view.
Word. "Emmerichosaura Regina: Giant Mama Lizard Gone Wrong" might have been a decent movie if not for the supposed Godzilla connection.
:smiley1:
Tyme2tyme
May 8, '08, 1:52 PM
I also agree with Gorn Captain about the Godzilla movie. I was a fairly good movie but to me, there are certain classic creatures I love and don't want them messed with :no:(CFTBL, Godzilla, POTA). There are also some films that the concept is premier and I don't mind the movies being updated (King Kong, Dracula). If they ever remake Creature I hope they don't screw him up! JOHN
>"they" are discussing re-making Carpenter's The Thing, which is ridiculous because that is a note-perfect film, widely regarded as a horror masterpiece.
...and TECHNICLY it's a remake itself. So they're gonna do a remake of a remake.... (Movies really HAVE gone back to their 1950's roots I guess....) Although I thought the Thing was more of a sequel. Or it COULD have been a sequel.
>To be honest, the Emmerich Godzilla was not such a bad giant monster flick, but it had very little to do with Toho Godzilla.
That's what I was saying. "Fraudzilla" was an okay film; but NOBODY would risk that much money on a no-name pic; so they sort of slapped "Godzilla" onto it. Which is a shame; 'cos it means we get more intellectual inbreeding.
>There are also some films that the concept is premier and I don't mind the movies being updated (King Kong, Dracula).
Maybe. Some ideas; like Dracula, are kinda generic/iconic and can be drawn from more than once. Sometimes they really miss the point with the remake, and a lot of times they remake stuff that doesn't need to be remade. Creature is a good example. I don't get bent out of shape when they redo stuff with modern effects but keep the old designs. (As much as possible.) Sorta polishes up the old idea.... But the Creature effects were pretty good; and the first film still holds up. The actual Creature costume worked surprisingly well. I'd be afraid that a remake would have all sorts of extraneuous bits, CGI crud, and multiple toyetic forms....
Don C.
Vortigern99
May 9, '08, 10:21 AM
Just a brief addendum here: Carpenter's The Thing is not in fact a "remake"; it's a second adaptation of the same source material, the novella Who Goes There? The two films share a title -- and truly not even that, since the 1951 Hawks movie is properly named The Thing From Another World -- and that's it. The characters, events and even the nature of the creature are wholly different from one another.
Type3Toys
May 11, '08, 6:24 PM
I would love to see this done. Just for once, I would love to see a true "REMAKE" of the original. Same Creature,same script, similar location. Most of the classic stuff is so timeless that it would work well today. If as much energy was spent on keeping stuff true to what made it great in the first place as is spent changing something, it would be a hit for sure.
The Bat
May 11, '08, 8:13 PM
I would love to see this done. Just for once, I would love to see a true "REMAKE" of the original. Same Creature,same script, similar location. Most of the classic stuff is so timeless that it would work well today. If as much energy was spent on keeping stuff true to what made it great in the first place as is spent changing something, it would be a hit for sure.
I'm with Ya!! I'd like to see it done that way as well...like Jackson did with KONG...but shorter running time.:smiley1:
Vortigern99
May 12, '08, 12:49 AM
I rather wish Jackson had stuck with the exact script of the original Kong, only added new scenes here and there that were in the same vein. (And obviously including all the new action and FX scenes.) The dialogue in the original has a crackle and a spark to it that Jackson's languid script utterly lacked. But that's a subject for that other thread. :ape:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.