Both the Creature from the Black Lagoon and The Wolfman remakes are due to be released in 2008. Does anyone know if these films actully in production right now, or are they still in pre-production?

I won't believe the Creature remake is for real until they finally start making it. The talk about this latest remake has been around for two or three years, if not longer.

After Van Helsing, I'm not hopeful.

Besides, The Creech was a 100% perfect horror film the first time. The best, most convincing monster costume ever, plus the glorious Julie Adams.

While I prefer to wait until I can see the movie myself or at least read several reviews of it, I have to agree with John. Recent attempts at remakes of classics do not bode well for a Creature remake.

Just the same, I do hope my fears prove to be unfounded.

Huzz

I tried to watch Van Helsing once, and it was just abysmal. I still like my Universal monsters in their pure, original B&W form.

As John & Trek Ace point out, if they got it right right the first time, why do they insist on wasting time and money remaking these films?

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if remakes like "Planet Of The Apes" or "Willy Wonka" or insert remake of your choice here actually outsold the originals? I mean disallowing the ridiculous inflation of ticket prices in the last 40 years...

The idea of a "Creature" remake bothers me in the same way the "POTA" remake bothered me...okay, yeah, so the special effects & make-up were better - but it was NOT a better movie.

I have understood everyones issues with Van Helsing, but I myself had not had any problems with it. I enjoyed the idea that Sommers had in making it. I could have dealt without the references to Universal Pictures, beginning with the opening logo. I got the idea without being constantly reminded if it.

And yes, I thoroghly enjoyed Van Helsing. I would have liked to see a sequel to it beyond the animated "prequel".

I too enjoyed Van Helsing. It wasn't the "classic" Universal monsters, but I'm too much of a realist to expect it to be. It was, to me, an enjoyable movie that took a slightly different slant to some of the "classics", in some cases a slant closer to the source materials IMHO. Your mileage may vary of course.

I attended a presentation on bipedal character animation last week, chaired by an anatomist who trains feature film CG animators and a senior creature designer from ILM. They both stressed how physics and is paramount in successful, believable character animation. Since they emphasized characters moving within limitiations of the physical world for believability, I asked how they felt about directors like Sommers and Ang Lee having CG characters perform completely outside of realistic physical limitations. The guy from ILM said, to effect, " We bang on keyboards, yell, throw things..." THe anatomist took the high ground, saying that the director has his vision of the character's abilities, and it's the job of the animators to realize that vision - but he also agreed with the creature designer that it erodes the believability of the character...

BTW, that's one reason I enjoyed Sommer's "The Mummy", but didn't care for "Van Helsing". Even with fantastic characters, I want to see them "living" within the restrictions of our physical world - realixstic motion, gravitational effects, etc. Van Helsing had both the creatures and humans moving way outside the limits of the physical world - and it kept jarring me away from the story (not that the story held me anyway...).

I see alot of closed minds about this topic. Think about all the different classic Dracula films with actors like Cristopher Lee, Bela Lugosi, Klaus Kinski, or even Gary Oldman. All of these films were remakes of classic Nosferatu film with Max Von Schreck. Each film has qualities I like and dislike. The bad versions are forgotten and the classics remain classics. Nosferatu has remained more popular than ever after all of these remakes.

I remember seeing "in progress" photos from a Creech remake/sequel back in the early '80s...including a shot of the face (same basic configuration but with bright blue-green eyes).
Whatever happened to that production I never heard.

the mummy was supposed to be the first of a series of near annual remakes of the classic universal monsters... and how long ago was that released?

the creature is one of those projects that has been on universals wish list for 20 years. someone will get assigned to the project, it'll get a tentative green light, then will run out of steam early on, and the project will get shelved again.

john landis and john carpenter have both been attached to it at one time or another, but that was decades ago.

im with roland, until shooting actually starts, dont believe it. (on the other hand, the wolfman remake does seem to be for real.)

the mummy was supposed to be the first of a series of near annual remakes of the classic universal monsters... and how long ago was that released?

Actually, Sommers' "mummy" films were the end of a series of Unversal remakes that were done during the 90's, most of which were done by Columbia Pictures and executive produced by Coppola.

Bram Stokers' Dracula
Mary Shelleys' Frankenstein
Wolf
Hollow Man

The internet movie data base(IMDB) states the creature is in preproduction
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0485799/
but nothing on the mummy is mentioned

Remaking The Creature From The Black Lagoon would be sort of like "remaking" a '53 Corvette.

http://www.cloc.org/53vette.jpg

http://lesliesrussell.blogsome.com/images/SP3220050729124136.gif

They were both about "perfect design", and if you change that, then there's not much point.

Zorro,

The '53 Corvette has been remade every year since '53. And, people are still buying Corvettes in 2007. Obviously, the people buying the new ones must think there is a point. The newer Corvettes have never made the original an unclassic. Some of the newer ones are classics themselves. But that's for the rich sports car collectors to squabble over... Personally, I could care less because I want a car that has more space than just two people anyway.

The Creature does not need to be remade, but, I would still like to see a well thought out serious effort be made on a modern version. I believe a CGI Creature would ruin it. Either way, the 1954 film will always remain a classic. I also believe the new film should have it's name altered from the original to differentiate the two versions.

We'll see what happens...

Roland

I don't care whether they remake it or not. My point is, the "suit" was the movie (with some credit to the lovely Julie and some nice underwater footage). There really isn't much to the movie beyond that. If not for that amazing Creature design, The Creature From The Black Lagoon wouldn't be any more memorable than is From Hell It Came or a gazillion other 1950s "guy in a rubber suit" movies. That specific design is what makes that movie a "classic".



2007 Corvette

http://www.grapevinerotary.com/images/images/2007%20Raffle/corvette%20coupe.jpg

I thought the Steve Wang Gillman from The Monster Squad was an OK fish-guy creature.
Classic arguably just looks like a seasick Victorian era bald guy with huge mutton chops.

^Is it just me, or that photo of Julie Adams one of the sexiest pictures ever?

As John & Trek Ace point out, if they got it right right the first time, why do they insist on wasting time and money remaking these films?

. today's movie company execs/producers have very little immagination. they only know how to make remakes.
You think they's pick up a good hugo winner of a novel and make a good movie or mini-series from it like they did with Dune.

Personally, I'm tired of the graphic remakes which tend to ignore the pure emotion that the earlier movies drew from their audiences. I actually felt sorry for the wolfman when he was killed, much like feeling pity on King Kong. If it turns out anything like Wolfen or An American Werewolf in Paris, I'm not gonna like it.

It's not just you, John!

Julie Adams was a major babe. **sigh**

1988 Mustang.

That specific design is what makes that movie a "classic".



Add to that Ricou Browning's wonderful underwater swimming sequences - Ben Chapman just shambled on the ground (as was requested of him) but Browning infused life into the Creature with his graceful swimming manuevers.

Did she ever star in any other monster/sci-fi movies?

Did she ever star in any other monster/sci-fi movies?

I would have bet that she retired years ago. But danged if she ain't still working.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0011105/

Hmmmm.

I had Julie and Ben sign that Creature still photo at Wonderfest in 2004. It's my favorite creature photo. However, the underwater scenes are what attracted me most to the movie combined with the eerie and real look of the suit and helmet. Those scenes scared the hell out of me when I was a kid. I remember that my former girlfriend's daughter had the same reaction to those scenes when I introduced her to the film.

From the point of view that the suit made the whole movie, then a remake would be in order if they get someone to write a better plot that's only loosely based on the original.

By the way Julie is a seemingly nice lady. When I saw her at Wonderfest, I think she still was still fairly decent looking at the age of 78.

And, Phrankenstein, I thought that comment you made about Julie was innapropriate. If you have any class, you will realize your error and delete it.

It was just meant as a harmless joke. I'm sorry about that.

Phrankenstein,
Thanks.
Roland

I think the Gillman in that squalid little "Monster Squad" rocked. Too bad he got so little screen time.

http://www.headinjurytheater.com/article30.htm
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/RonH_photos/gillmanpissed.jpg
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/RonH_photos/gillmanlifting.jpg

That specific design is what makes that movie a "classic".Add to that Ricou Browning's wonderful underwater swimming sequences - Ben Chapman just shambled on the ground (as was requested of him) but Browning infused life into the Creature with his graceful swimming manuevers.I believe this was done intentionally to show that, though the Creature was amphibious and could move about on land, he was truly more at home in the water. But to hear Chapman talk about it, his performance is eveything to the film and Browning's contributions don't mean much. Kinda reminds me of how David Prowse is constantly going around "reminding" everyone that he played Darth Vader and that James Earl Jones only provided the character's voice, just because Jones gets more notoriety. :freak:

I've been hearing rumors about a CFTBL remake since the mid 70's--I'll believe it when I see it. Truth be told, I hope it doesn't happen; a Creature remake will just be another dismal example of a group of young "hot shots" who think they have a better idea.

Oh, btw, Van Helsing was one of the worst films I've ever seen. It's not often I walk out of a theater wishing I had that time and the admission price back, but after seeing that steaming pile of go-se...

I didn't care for Van Helsing either. However, Van Helsing was not a remake. It's story is just loosely based on several monster characters is all. This was one of those movies that people either liked or hated.

I have never watched VH. Wasn't interested. No harm, no foul. I just wonder when Hollywood will get a clue and make new stories. No imagination. :cry:

j

I have never watched VH. Wasn't interested. No harm, no foul. I just wonder when Hollywood will get a clue and make new stories. No imagination. :cry:

j
Look at last weekend's 10 ten box office. There are four sequels (RUSH HOUR 3, THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX, and DADDY DAY CAMP), two remakes (HAIRSPRAY and NO RESERVATIONS), two TV cartoon spinoffs (THE SIMPSONS MOVIE and UNDERDOG), a low-brow comedy (I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU CHUCK AND LARRY), and one quirky and original fantasy (STARDUST) that is already being declared a major flop.

Hollywood knows exactly what they're doing. They are giving the audience exactly what it wants. People who say they want original ideas are either in a minority or simply lying.

Look at last weekend's 10 ten box office. There are four sequels (RUSH HOUR 3, THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX, and DADDY DAY CAMP), two remakes (HAIRSPRAY and NO RESERVATIONS), two TV cartoon spinoffs (THE SIMPSONS MOVIE and UNDERDOG), a low-brow comedy (I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU CHUCK AND LARRY), and one quirky and original fantasy (STARDUST) that is already being declared a major flop.

Hollywood knows exactly what they're doing. They are giving the audience exactly what it wants. People who say they want original ideas are either in a minority or simply lying.

Not to pick nits, but sequals are different imo than remakes. I didn't see any of the movies playing currently. I can honestly say that I want original content, not rehashes or remakes. It would seem that those who want original content are a minority though but lying? :rolleyes:

I'm not accusing you of lying. But there are plenty of people who complain about how Hollywood can't do anything original, and then just keep going to whatever big movie is being advertised every ten minutes in primetime the week before it is released. There are plenty of original movies out there, but they require a little effort to find, not to mention a willingness to watch something that may fall outside your comfort level.

One the reasons given for STARDUST'S failure is the fact that it was difficult to convey what the movie was like in a 30 second spot.

That said, I have to say I disagree with the whole premise that we need more "original" movies. Although originality is a plus, I don't consider lack of originiality a negative. There are so many factors that determine whether or not a movie works, the underlying idea a very minor factor.

THE MALTESE FALCON was made into a movie three times within the span of ten years. It is the third version with Humphrey Bogart that is universally considered a classsic.

Being first doesn't meant it's the best. Sometimes it takes several tries to get it right. It's all in the execution.

Not to pick nits, but sequals are different imo than remakes.
Possibly ... but sequels, by and large, aren't any more original than remakes IMO.
But there are plenty of people who complain about how Hollywood can't do anything original, and then just keep going to whatever big movie..
Like "Transformers"?
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=2011468&postcount=26
...or yet ANOTHER Trek
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=2035395&postcount=17

Possibly ... but sequels, by and large, aren't any more original than remakes IMO.

Like "Transformers"?
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=2011468&postcount=26
...or yet ANOTHER Trek
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=2035395&postcount=17


Well, yes, they do contain all the elements of the original set in a different environment, so I stand/sit corrected.

And leave Trek outta this, that's different! :tongue:

BEBruns, I understand that your post wasn't directed specifically at me. It just rubbed me the wrong way. Of course with the day I am having, everything seems to be hitting the wrong way. My apologies.

I agree that being first isn't always best and that "original" isn't the end all of good movies. I know that hollywood is in the business to make money, and admitedly I have bought into that with Transformers, Star Wars, Trek etc..etc..
I guess fwiw, like as what has been said before, how many good books would make great mini's or movies. As difficult as some would be to translate into good movies, it can be done ala LOTR. series stands out imo..

And, to my embarressment, often times the "unique or unusual" movie that I end up enjoying, is brought to my attention by my wife. I'm just as happy to watch reruns of trek on DVD over and over and over....

In conclusion, I should keep my mouth shut. :cool:

j

Name as many remakes of sequels that you can think of.

One sequel that I really like is James Whale's The Bride of Frankenstein. This movie was more imaginative than James Whale's Frankenstein. He outdid himself.

You're right; "the suit" really did make the movie. And it haunted my young dreams from the first time I saw it.

Ahhhh, Julie Adams and "The Great, White One-Piece"...

OH! YOU were talking about the Creature suit!

Nevermind...:cool:

I approach these movies the same way I did the Ameri-Godzilla.
Take away the title and comparisons to the Classic and you have a pretty cool monster movie

Frankenstyrene , a remake of a sequel : "The Bride " starring Sting and that "flashdance " chick .
IMO Van Helsing was a remake of any one of the Monstermash movies such as "House of Frankenstein " etc .
hb

Frankenstyrene , a remake of a sequel : "The Bride " starring Sting and that "flashdance " chick .

That's the only one I could think of, too.

Beck,

You're right. I forgot about Van Helsing being more like a remake of House of Frankenstein or House of Dracula.

Roland

What about the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake?

yes , forgot about that one . doh !!
hb

Creature From the Black Lagoon Remake Enters Pre-Production
Monday, July 9th, 2007 at 7:36 pm by Robert
Variety reveals that the Universal-based production house Strike Entertainment — the forced behind 2004’s Dawn of the Dead redux, James Gunn’s wholesomely fun Slither and this years mega-hit 300 — have just initiated the pre-production process on a remake of Jack Arnold’s 1954 lake monster classic, The Creature From the Black Lagoon. Once intended as a directorial outing for Hellboy’s Guillermo del Toro, the project is now set to be directed by Breck Eisner (Sahara, TV’s “Taken”) with a script penned by Seabiscuit’s Gary Ross. Ross and his colleagues Marc Abraham and Eric Newman will produce.

The Wolf Man is a 2008 horror film that is a remake of the 1941 Universal Studios classic The Wolf Man. The remake is directed by Mark Romanek and stars Benicio del Toro. The script is written by Andrew Kevin Walker. The Wolf Man is slated for a November 14, 2008 release.

Will be set in Victorian England. Del Toro will play a man who returns from America to his ancestral homeland, gets bitten by a werewolf and begins a hairy moonlight existence. Screenwriter (http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/movies.php?id=3144#), Andrew Kevin Walker, spent several months working on some frightening new twists to a familiar tale, adding several characters and plot points that take advantage of cutting-edge visual effects technology.

The Creature From the Black Lagoon Movie Remake to Be Released in 2008

According to the official home page of Ben Chapman, production for the Creature From the Black Lagoon remake will take place later this year. The movie is slated for release sometime in 2008 and is currently budgeted at $90 million. Breck Eisner is directing with Gary Ross (and Tedi Safarian assisting) as the screenwriter.

Says Eisner of the movie:

"I've always been a fan of the original, but for this I would love to just update and modernize the film," Eisner said in an interview. "We see it as an aggressive sci-fi horror film in the vein an 'Alien' or like John Carpenter's 'The Thing.' We want to elevate the source material."

According to the Movie Insider, the plot synopsis is:

A Victorian expedition group searching for fossils along the Amazon locate an area that has been kept on a tangential track of evolution alongside mankind, untouched by modern man, and filled with strange and fantastic creatures. This haven is guarded, however, by a sleek and clever gill-man: the Creature from the Black Lagoon.

The plot may have changed somewhat this past year because according to the L.A. Daily News and CBS News(3/12/07), a "murderous fish-man of the Amazon is spawned by the sins of a pharmaceutical giant."

So far, Universal Studios has signed Bill Paxton as an actor in the movie. If I was to make a guess, it would be to play the male lead (David Reed in the original). Brian Steele will play the Gillman. Stay tuned for updates.

Bill Paxton? Game over, maaan!