Help support the Mego Museum
Help support the Mego Museum

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Creature from the black Lagoon" Remake?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Vortigern99
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Bat
    replied
    Originally posted by Type3Toys
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Type3Toys
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vortigern99
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ctc
    replied
    >"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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tyme2tyme
    replied
    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 (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

    Leave a comment:


  • Vortigern99
    replied
    Originally posted by Gorn Captain
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gorn Captain
    replied
    Originally posted by 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.
    Amen to that. I wholeheartedly concur!

    Leave a comment:


  • Gorn Captain
    replied
    Originally posted by 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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vortigern99
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ctc
    replied
    >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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vortigern99
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Werewolf
    replied
    Originally posted by 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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vortigern99
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gorn Captain
    replied
    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!!!!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
😀
🥰
🤢
😎
😡
👍
👎