annericelover

The Bride of Frankenstein Remake

Recommended Posts

It seems that Universal Pictures will remake the classic sequel(the the first to surpass the original in quality)to Frankenstein. The film was remade in 1985 as The Bride, starring Jennifer Beals and Sting. The film was okay, but unless you know the story you got lost(since there was no original to come off of). I'm not sure if this remake will be considered a sequel to the De Niro remake Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, but considering they did adapt the Bride part of the Shelly novel in that it most likely won't be.

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/16506

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've heard Universal say, there will be a remake of Frankenstein first, as well as a sequel to Dracula with Javier Bardem in talks for the Count. The Universal monster films are fair game for remakes as far as I'm concerned. I'm actually very interested to see what's produced.

Remaking these is almost like making another Shadow movie. It's a pulp character, not a sacred cow.

We'll see what happens first with Benicio Del Toro as the Wolfman. I used to really like ti back in the day when I could type Del Toro and everyone would know exactly who I was talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm apprehensive about Wolf-Man since the original is my favorite of the classic Universal horror films. As for Frankenstein and Dracula, I feel that they've reached such a level of classic that they are kind of sacred cows at this point. Now if they approach it like the new Friday the 13th and set out to make their own film as opposed to a shot-for-shot remake, I'm fine with it. But if they basically take the original and throw new actors in it, I doubt I'll bother with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm apprehensive about Wolf-Man since the original is my favorite of the classic Universal horror films. As for Frankenstein and Dracula, I feel that they've reached such a level of classic that they are kind of sacred cows at this point. Now if they approach it like the new Friday the 13th and set out to make their own film as opposed to a shot-for-shot remake, I'm fine with it. But if they basically take the original and throw new actors in it, I doubt I'll bother with them.

My problem with them remaking the classic monsters is that, very little movie watchers won't bother with them because they're black and white. The Mummy and Mummy Returns were great remakes, but its rare that they can pull it off with all the monsters. The Wolf Man is a favorite of mine, but Bride is my favorite of all the Universal Monster films, next too Dracula and Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Bram Stoker's Dracula are also great remakes, but they had the fotunate advantage of sticking to the novels.

The Hammer Films are another example of how remakes can work, but at the same time studios are more interested in wowing an audience with special effects and more blood, than leaving them with a mark in their heads. The new Friday the 13th left a lot of cliche's in, but toyed with them, they had a twist, but different than the original, that's how it worked.

The Bride was an okay film, like I said before, the perfomances were good enough for repeat viewings, but my problem was that they had no first film to come off of, the making of the Monster takes place in the credits and than it runs off to the circus and he starts on a mate. At least that's what I remember, that and the little guy who was in charge of the Time Bandits.

I hope its not a shot for shot remake, but I also hope they show enough respect for the originals to keep the classy look, the silent, but dark atmosphere and not the over the top blood and gore and no nudity, its not always needed in horror films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're getting into dangerous territory here.

The Hammer films are not remakes. Dracula and Frankenstein are novels so any film in the vein of those novels are not remakes unless they specifically remake the movie. Bram Stoker's Dracula has nothing to do with the Universal Dracula film and neither do the Hammer films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're getting into dangerous territory here.

The Hammer films are not remakes. Dracula and Frankenstein are novels so any film in the vein of those novels are not remakes unless they specifically remake the movie. Bram Stoker's Dracula has nothing to do with the Universal Dracula film and neither do the Hammer films.

I know this....but since they are films about the same characters, but a different source of materials it could still be said that its a remake. The Universal films are based on the plays that were adapted from the novels. Bram Stoker's Dracula is a definite remake to the Hammer film Horror of Dracula. With Mary Shelley's Frankenstein being a remake of Evil of Frankenstein from Hammer Films. The Frank Langella Dracula film is a remake to the Universal Film, mainly because it was remade by Universal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bram Stoker's Dracula is not a remake. It is an adaptation.

It contains homages that harken back to the Hammer and Universal films but it is exclusively an adaptation.

Horror of Dracula has no Renfield, or Quincy, Mina is not his fiance, Lucy is. Dracula is completely different in power beyond hypnosis and drinking blood.

Sorry man. I don't know a whole lot about Hammer, but I know Horror of Dracula and it is very different from Coppola's films who has said exclusively that he wanted to adapt the novel not a previous film. He has never remade a film and would probably consider it beneath him. He loves to adapt well-known novels. Godfather, Heart of Darkness, Outsiders, Rumble Fish, Rainmaker.

Don't debate Coppola with me. The guy finances his own films and thus never needs the cash one gets from remakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bram Stoker's Dracula is not a remake. It is an adaptation.

Don't debate Coppola with me. The guy finances his own films and thus never needs the cash one gets from remakes.

Horror of Dracula was the 2nd adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel, Nosferatu was the first and Bram Stoker's Dracula was the last. While they adapt it differently its from the same source. The Bela Lugosi and Frank Langella Dracula were adapted from a different source, but also differently.

So in a sense it is, but considering they changed things up a bit, I guess you can argue the other as well. Either way you have to admit they are great adaptations, Christopher Lee and Gary Oldman are awesome and Max Schreck is just eerie.

I love Coppola films too, he has a way of just knowing what angles to take and to set up a great atmosphere. The Godfather trilogy is one of my favorite trilogies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.