"Creature from the black Lagoon" Remake?

[Bo8a_Fett]

I actually never much cared for the original CFTBL (thought is was really boring)

Hopefully a remake will be better

BLASPHEMER!!! KILL THE HERETIC!!!

[Mikey]

It was like the most boring monster movie EVER !!!!!!!

[thunderbolt]

^^^ Never saw the Creeping Terror have you?

[ctc]

>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]

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]

^^^ Like this one? Sure it was the 50's, so she didn't totally get nekkid, but wowsers!!

[Vortigern99]

Here's a link to some previous Creature remake concepts.

The Creature from the Black Lagoon (TBA) : 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[ctc]

>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]

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]

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.