Creature From The Black Lagoon Remake

[white avenger]

I read recently that there have been tentative plans to remake this classic horror movie, one of my favorites (along with the giant ants in "Them ") and I was just wondering how many people here have actually seen the three original "Creature"movies, and think that a remake would be a good idea.

 

[Fuffy Baith]

It's all a part of Universal remaking their classic "monster" movies and having it all be in a shared cinematic universe. I'm excited for the new Mummy movie. I have not seen any of The Creature from the Black Lagoon movies. I do like Go Fish, though. lol. So yea I'm up for seeing a remake. I confess I've actually not seen ANY of the old monster movies. Not Bela Lugosi's Dracula or The Wolfman, or Frankenstein or Boris Karloff's The Mummy. I did like The Brendan Fraiser mummy movies. I would like to check these all out though before I see the remakes.

 

[Athena]

Remakes are hardly ever a good idea. I mean, I've not seen the original, so I couldn't comment, but I know it's a classic movie from the 50s. Why doesn't Universal see how the Mummy reboot fares before planning a whole shared universe? DC have done this too, and its not been a great idea thus far.... 🙄

 

[white avenger]

I have not seen any of The Creature from the Black Lagoon movies. I do like Go Fish, though. lol.

The characters in that episode looked very similar to the original Gill Man.

Remakes are hardly ever a good idea.

At one time, James Cameron was interested in directing the remake, though I'm sure that he's now relatively busy shooting 3 "Avatar" sequels simultaneously. Also, Scarlett Johanssen was approached to star. (Just imagine, "Black Widow vs the Gill Man." I'd pay to see that rather than "King Kong vs Godzilla" any day)

 

[ILLYRIAN]

No doubt one of the many rumours flying about but the virtually disused grain storage depot at the Midland rail terminal in Perth, Western Australia, was used in "Them"

 

[Fuffy Baith]

Why doesn't Universal see how the Mummy reboot fares before planning a whole shared universe? DC have done this too, and its not been a great idea thus far.... 🙄

True. But the difference is that Universal is ACTUALLY planning out their universe, not just throwing things out. Universal is taking their time with this after the flop of that Dracula Untold movie. And the trailer for the new Mummy looks pretty good. And it's got a good cast, and the special effects are better now than then were in the Brendan Fraiser movies.

I'd pay to see that rather than "King Kong vs Godzilla" any day)

I loved the trailer for King Kong: Skull Island. Looks pretty awesome!

 

[HowiMetdaSlayer]

I didn't think much of the new mummy trailer. To be fair I didn't care for the Fraser versions. I've heard the original (Karloff) is supposed to be pretty good, but never got round to it. 😳

 

[white avenger]

I loved the trailer for King Kong: Skull Island. Looks pretty awesome!

Yeah, it does, but they've got Kong way, WAY too big. I know, it's done that way so that he'll be a good match for Godzilla in the pair up, but they made Godzilla way, WAY, WAY too big too. A 12 to 16 foot ape is fairly easy to imagine, and the same goes for a pseudo dinosaur/mutant lizard thing, but making them several hundred feet tall apiece just puts a real strain on my ability to suspend disbelief. There's just no dern reason for them to be that big. If for no other reason, it makes the interaction between monsters and humans very difficult. Animals that size wouldn't even notice anything as relatively tiny as people, and even if they did, it would be like one of us being annoyed by an ant. Just squish it with one finger and move on.

 

[Fuffy Baith]

Yeah, it does, but they've got Kong way, WAY too big. I know, it's done that way so that he'll be a good match for Godzilla in the pair up, but they made Godzilla way, WAY, WAY too big too. A 12 to 16 foot ape is fairly easy to imagine, and the same goes for a pseudo dinosaur/mutant lizard thing, but making them several hundred feet tall apiece just puts a real strain on my ability to suspend disbelief. There's just no dern reason for them to be that big. If for no other reason, it makes the interaction between monsters and humans very difficult. Animals that size wouldn't even notice anything as relatively tiny as people, and even if they did, it would be like one of us being annoyed by an ant. Just squish it with one finger and move on.

I agree they made Godzilla WAY too big, it was hard to believe that he's been living in the ocean for years. As a result they had to scale up Kong which also does not make any sense. What does he eat? That big would require an insane amount of calories a day. And then to believe these mutant lizards have been living under ground. You're right it's a lot to suspend disbelief. However, Kong looks pretty bad ass, and it has a great cast, so I'm excited for it.

 

[white avenger]

However, Kong looks pretty bad ass, and it has a great cast, so I'm excited for it.

Oh, I'll be there to see it, just like I've seen every other Kong movie from Fay Wray on, and both "Mighty Joe Young" movies. I even saw those ridiculous things in "John Carter" (again, way, WAY too big. Burroughs' Martian apes were only slightly taller than the green men, which made a more appropriate foe for a sword wielding hero) I wonder if they're going to do the same thing with this version of "Kong vs Godzilla," and have two different endings, one for the American and European audience, where Kong wins, and another one for the Japanese audience, where Godzilla wins.

 

[Fuffy Baith]

Oh, I'll be there to see it, just like I've seen every other Kong movie from Fay Wray on, and both "Mighty Joe Young" movies. I even saw those ridiculous things in "John Carter" (again, way, WAY too big. Burroughs' Martian apes were only slightly taller than the green men, which made a more appropriate foe for a sword wielding hero) I wonder if they're going to do the same thing with this version of "Kong vs Godzilla," and have two different endings, one for the American and European audience, where Kong wins, and another one for the Japanese audience, where Godzilla wins.

Oh I use to love Mighty Joe Young when I was a kid. Lol. I would be totally fine if they had two endings where each of them win. However, I think they are going to make the fight a draw and have them team up. Cause it worked so well in Batman v Superman. lol. I like your idea better. Lol

 

[Mr Trick]

Don't have anything against them remaking these classic monster movies. There is always room to update them. But the difference with CFTBL and the likes of Kong and Godzilla is that Creature appealed because of its trashy b-movie style. You just now that they will throw money at the remark and lose that charm. I'm not interested in this.

I didn't think much of the new mummy trailer. To be fair I didn't care for the Fraser versions. I've heard the original (Karloff) is supposed to be pretty good, but never got round to it. 😳

The new Mummy doesn't interest me either😉 I did like the first Fraser Mummy actually, after that they were just overblown CGI fests. Think I need to catch up on the Karloff version too🙂

 

[white avenger]

I didn't think much of the new mummy trailer. To be fair I didn't care for the Fraser versions. I've heard the original (Karloff) is supposed to be pretty good, but never got round to it. 😳

I haven't seen the trailer for the new "Mummy," but, knowing that Tom Cruise is going to star, I wouldn't even consider it to be a remake or reboot of the "real" (Karloff) movie, but more just another platform for the star to execute some more outlandish stunts. The same goes for the Frasier trilogy. They were fun comedy/adventure movies. "The Mummy" is a horror story, and Karis (however the name was spelled) was a monster. There were no jokes and no laughter involved in the story. Frasier's movies weren't as bad as "Abbot & Costello Meet Frankenstein," by a long shot, but they were definitely NOT horror movies. For that matter, I seriously doubt that anyone in Hollywood is capable of making a real horror movie anymore. Slasher films and zombie apocalypses aren't horror movies, they're just poor writing and acting sandwiched in with a lot of blood and guts.

 

[HowiMetdaSlayer]

Slasher films and zombie apocalypses aren't horror movies, they're just poor writing and acting sandwiched in with a lot of blood and guts.

Amen!

 

[Mr Trick]

I haven't seen the trailer for the new "Mummy," but, knowing that Tom Cruise is going to star, I wouldn't even consider it to be a remake or reboot of the "real" (Karloff) movie, but more just another platform for the star to execute some more outlandish stunts. The same goes for the Frasier trilogy. They were fun comedy/adventure movies. "The Mummy" is a horror story, and Karis (however the name was spelled) was a monster. There were no jokes and no laughter involved in the story. Frasier's movies weren't as bad as "Abbot & Costello Meet Frankenstein," by a long shot, but they were definitely NOT horror movies. For that matter, I seriously doubt that anyone in Hollywood is capable of making a real horror movie anymore. Slasher films and zombie apocalypses aren't horror movies, they're just poor writing and acting sandwiched in with a lot of blood and guts.

I don't have any problem with them turning the Mummy into a action adventure movie. Times change and cinema has to move with it. I believe that classic stories can be adapted into different things, not to mention the genres of horror and comedy have always been closely linked anyway. The problem was that the first Fraser Mummy was a good old fashioned adventure, and the sequels were just shallow and boring.

The Abbot & Costello Meet Frankenstein film was meant to be a piss-take. Its a spoof. What's wrong with that?😀

Again about your slasher comment? Horror has to move with the times. And yes there has been a lot of bad slasher films, but there have been a lot of great ones too. Halloween, the first two Scream films, Nightmare on Elm Street etc...

 

[white avenger]

I don't have any problem with them turning the Mummy into a action adventure movie. Times change and cinema has to move with it.

Hey, I like action adventure movies. I like comedies. I even like good musicals. I like all kinds of movies, as long as they are well made. I understand that the term "original" only happens once, and there's no such thing as a new classic. I just recognize the fact that what passes for modern horror has to rely on gallons of fake blood and screaming to achieve the same effect that Bela Lugosi achieved with the simple statement, "I never drink...wine."

There's entertainment, and there's art. Lugosi, Karloff, and Chaney were artists. What passes for horror today is, at best, entertainment.

 

[Bluebird]

I don't think I've seen any of those classic horror movies, other than Frankenstein. I loved King Kong when I was a child though. A lot of good movies were made in the 30s, since it was basically the dawn of modern cinema.

 

[Fuffy Baith]

Hey, I like action adventure movies. I like comedies. I even like good musicals. I like all kinds of movies, as long as they are well made. I understand that the term "original" only happens once, and there's no such thing as a new classic. I just recognize the fact that what passes for modern horror has to rely on gallons of fake blood and screaming to achieve the same effect that Bela Lugosi achieved with the simple statement, "I never drink...wine."

There's entertainment, and there's art. Lugosi, Karloff, and Chaney were artists. What passes for horror today is, at best, entertainment.

This is probably part of the reason I'm not a horror movie fan and most of them don't scare me. Blood and gore just creeps me out but that's not really a scare. I think out of all the classic movie monsters, the mummy leads itself most to being an action adventure. And I think Universal did say that the movie will incorporate elements of horror. We just have to wait and find out. And there's a good chance that if The Mummy doesn't do well at the box office, there might not continue with the other movies.

 

[Mr Trick]

Hey, I like action adventure movies. I like comedies. I even like good musicals. I like all kinds of movies, as long as they are well made. I understand that the term "original" only happens once, and there's no such thing as a new classic. I just recognize the fact that what passes for modern horror has to rely on gallons of fake blood and screaming to achieve the same effect that Bela Lugosi achieved with the simple statement, "I never drink...wine."

There's entertainment, and there's art. Lugosi, Karloff, and Chaney were artists. What passes for horror today is, at best, entertainment.

That's not what I'm saying. My point was that the newer versions of the Mummy films or even the A&C film were not trying to be scary. In which case you have to judge them on something different from the original films. And you're making a sweeping statement about modern horror. Yes you are right up to a point. But check out films like The Babadook, The Orphanage, Let the Right One, and Under the Shadow. All great horror films without having to resort to lots of blood. And the original Halloween was a slasher film, not only was it great, but again it didn't feature much blood.

 

[GwenRaiden]

I don't think I've seen any of those classic horror movies, other than Frankenstein. I loved King Kong when I was a child though. A lot of good movies were made in the 30s, since it was basically the dawn of modern cinema.

I remember you, me and our dad watching The Invisible Man (1933) a few times together. That's a great film. I think it counts as one of the old monster movies.

I really liked the 1994 Frankenstein remake, even if it didn't exactly go down the horror route.

I don't know. I prefer the old b-movie type movies than the classic monster movies. Night of the Demon, The Devil Rides Out, The Ghost Train, The Blob, etc etc.