Movie News

The ILM-UNIVERSAL FRANKENSTEIN gets Greenlit

Published at: Sept. 22, 1998, 12:06 a.m. CST by staff

Alright folks. We have heard that ILM has been working on some sort of FRANKENSTEIN all CGI film. (that means computer animation. I know that sounds pretentious folks, but I will get letters about that) I’ve heard it is amazing work. But guess what, UNIVERSAL has given the go ahead on the project. The greenlight is on for “FRANKENSTEIN AND THE WOLFMAN”

WHOA!!!! What the hell!!! I swear to friggin god that is the word. I’ve had 6 separate sources over 2 weeks now tell me that’s the title. Now I’m completely friggin confused. I’m stunned. I love the old FRANKENSTEIN VS THE WOLFMAN. Maria Ouspenskaya was a marvel to behold. Patric Knowles.... A distant relative in some sort of imaginary universe of mine.

Now the question is this. How is this going to look. Will it be photorealistic? If so, are they using the Jack Pierce designs, and the faces of Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney Jr? The busts do exist for scanning purposes. Has UNIVERSAL contacted the Karloff, Chaney and Lugosi estates? If they have, if they paid for them... MY GOD this could be cool. Don’t get me wrong, this could be cool anyway, but with those designs.... a FRANZ WAXMAN-style score by DANNY ELFMAN.... Talk about a friggin wet dream... Man, that’d be cool.

But you can see why I need details... why we need details... This has the potential to be the most ass-whuppingly cool project this side of anything. The UNIVERSAL monsters brought back to life... wow. Shivers...

Although I could hear some purists talking about the images of Karloff, Lugosi and Chaney and saying, “WE BELONG DEAD”. True, if they screw this up... well it could be a sacrilege. If they attempt to cheat the estates of the great monsters... Anger. But heck, it just took a little bit of goading from Harlan Ellison to get Robert Bloch’s widow some money for PSYCHO, so surely UNIVERSAL would do the same. Because let’s face it, the Jack Pierce designs, and those cheek bones... well, it’s classic. I can just see them Universal skies, the dead trees, the cobblestone streets, the mobs of torch waving and farm implement waving peons.... Wow. This could be soooooooooooo cooooool!!! Let’s hope. Let’s pray. And if you know ANYTHING, drop me a line. I’m dying to hear everything on this one.

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Sept. 22, 1998, 1:01 a.m. CST

    CGI

    by Taxman

    Put the faces of old dead stars into a CGI movie? That sounds really sick, and I hope it ain't going to happen.

  • Sept. 22, 1998, 2:25 a.m. CST

    Since when does ILM make their own movies!??

    by John McLame

    This sounds fake. I pray to the movie gods that this is true. Watching movies like Twister, DragonHeart, & Lost World which all kinda sucked but had ILM effects that were scary good, I had been hoping for the day ILM & Lucasfilm would make their own animated movie! Especially after seeing Toy Story, I thought ILM could really scare us with their Magic.. I would love to see them make an animated Marvel movie. Forget LiveAction! Do up Secret Wars!

  • Sept. 22, 1998, 3:19 a.m. CST

    Frankenstein

    by mcmurphy

    Thats exactly what we need - another Frankenstein-movie. We saw this shit over and over again. I think it's enough. How about a brand new story ?

  • Sept. 22, 1998, 7:23 a.m. CST

    Why is it cool?

    by fig

    Because you obviously know nothing about animation. We don't even know for sure that it is a remake, it may just be based on those characters, and we know nothing about the style, whether they're going for something cartoony, realiztic, etc. Whatever the case, taking live action characters and recreating them in a more animated style in CG works a LOT better than taking real people and trying to make them move like animated characters.

  • Sept. 22, 1998, 7:28 a.m. CST

    Timmy,Be quiet or no Tellytubbies vibrator!

    by Santa Claws

    Silly timmy, Everyone who isn't partially retarted(the only kind of children santa hates) knows that the reason that an animated Frankenstien is that it can be a step forward in animation, hopefully toward a future where animation can be for everyone not just the kiddies. A movie like the animated Willy Wonka is stupid because it was truly brilliant as a live action film. It would just be plain flat without the genuis of and the great surriealistic visuals, unless of course it could adapt the true spirit of the Dahl book which it most likely WILL NOT. The Grinch as an animated film was perfect. If it's live action you'll lose most of the greatness of the actual poem and will just be another vehicle for the "nutty" side of Jim Carrey. The Frankenstien project can have a lot more added with animation, and one of the big things was that the original was just fun. Nothing special. So timmy, I hope you keep licking your asshole and don't try to speak your opinon in the future. Santy Claws

  • Sept. 22, 1998, 7:46 a.m. CST

    Busts of Karloff&Chaney

    by m0nsTerGrrrL

    One of my favorite b-movie horror guys is Tom Savini. It recently dawned on me that I hadn't surfed th'neT on him, so I did. Well, on his site he shows pix of some busts HE created of several classic monsters - Karloff's Frankenstein & Chaney's Wolfman included. Mr. Savini has done a remarkable job in this homage to horror history. Check it out! http://www.savini.com/

  • Sept. 22, 1998, 7:47 a.m. CST

    The Dead Walk!

    by Pat Hobby

    Personally, I am normally against re-making anything. However, in this case, I must admit that I am intrigued by the notion of reincarnating the faces of Lugosi, Karloff, and Chaney. It's almost as if ILM will be making these giants into the undead beings that they always played on the screen! You just have to appreciate the irony! However, fuck Waxman, I want to hear the Edgar Winter score.

  • Sept. 22, 1998, 7:59 a.m. CST

    NEW AGE MOVIES

    by Dragon

    OK. This is not so much about Frankenstein - because we know this story. It is about new age of film making in which people who work movies DIGITAL WAY are in control of the content. Before movies - there was theater. And directors that did first movies were theater people - keeping camera locked all times - without stopping it!!! Later on - real cinematographers took over and made movies as we know them today. Now - it is happening in digital realms. There are so many movies that are using digital technology for the wrong reasons, and it is mainly because of MINDS that created them. It is to salute that movies are now CREATED by the people who are FILMMAKERS of DIGITAL AGE. Question is - if technology is NEW - What is going on with the new ideas? Is there any? Is this a signal for DIGITAL ACTORS to rise? Are there going to be more Frankensteins (actors brought from the other side)? Take more than a minute to think about it.

  • Sept. 22, 1998, 8:51 a.m. CST

    Why map the faces?

    by Dudge

    Isn't all of this crap about using dead actors' faces just rank conjecture? And rather wrongheaded conjecture at that. I don't think that anyone really want's to see performers reanimated. Remember those Diet Coke ads with Cagney and Bogart? Remember the Dirt Devil ad with Astaire? Too many people found that stuff distasteful for anyone to even consider doing that with a feature film. As a creative type myself, I would love to see a NEW artistic design of Frankenstein and the Wolfman, which does not wholly reject the fine designs of old, but which shows enough imagination not to merely do a 3D cut and paste job. The motion picture industry does not exist merely to fuel your personal nostalgia trip, Harry.

  • Sept. 22, 1998, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Danny Elfman? Cool.

    by ethank

    This movie would be made for Elfman. I've been very anxious for him to score some more Halloween themed animation. Anyhow...

  • Sept. 22, 1998, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Frankenstein

    by Omega

    Sacrilege! First of all Hollywood has NEVER made a good Frankenstein movie. Karloff's version was a joke - completely missing the point of Shelley's masterpiece. Branagh's attempt, while a good effort, still missed the most important aspect of the story. The monster (his name is NOT Frankenstein) is better than any other human. To steal a line from White Zombie, he was "More human than human." Nobody has ever seriously brought Shelley's amazing story to life on the screen. Instead of even remaining remotely true to her vision, they have bastardized her monster into some stupid, bumbling, green (not yellow?) creature with bolts in his neck. It makes me ill to think that again Hollywood will malign the greatest "monster" of all time.

  • Sept. 22, 1998, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Karloff shall forever live on

    by Kyle Osburn

    Hey, I a HUGE fan of the Universal Monsters. I annualy watch Frankenstein, Dracula, Wolf Man, and The Mummy every halloween and I think that this movie is gonna kick-ass. I don't think thereis anything wrong with using the old Jack Pierce makeup and the actors faces bacause it has been done in other movies like Forrest Gump and Contact. I am also eagerly awaiting Universal's remake of The Mummy although It will never measure up to the original which is IMO the greatest horror movie ever made. I still get a kick out of the first time Karloff comes through the door as Imohtep. If this film does well at the box-office, maybe we will see more CGI monster flicks in the future

  • Sept. 22, 1998, 3:19 p.m. CST

    NOW ITS BEGGING???

    by Q

    You fat bastard! No new news? resorting to begging? Go eat another pizza... If you delete thi you are an even lower lifeform than Fat Ginger boy.

  • Sept. 22, 1998, 3:55 p.m. CST

    Well at least...

    by Terminator

    At least ILM is doing this instead of "Ant Story VI: The Life Of A Toy Bug." I can just imagine it. A hip, edgy toy ant, voiced by Leonardo Dicaprio, longs to be a real ant when he falls in love with the queen of the local ant colony. Unfortunately for him, the queen (voiced by Natalie Portman) is involved in a forbidden love affair with a mealworm (voiced by David Schwimmer). The toy ant wins her love by enlisting the help of his toy compadres (including a Tickle-Me-Elmo voiced by Jonathan Lipnicki) to turn him into a real ant for 24 hours.

  • Sept. 22, 1998, 4:42 p.m. CST

    Bela Lugosi played the monster in Frankenstein vs. Wolfman!!!

    by MacJedi

    I believe that Bela Lugosi played Frankenstein in Frankenstein vs. Wolfman so why would they make a cgi face of Boris Karloff???

  • Sept. 22, 1998, 8:53 p.m. CST

    Those jar thingies!

    by 0007

    Hey!, Believe it or not, those "jar thingies" are based off of real lore from Mary Shelley's time! They were called a "homunculus" by alchemists of the day who believed by placing semen in a jar and burying it for 40 days packed in horse manure, and then opening the lid to "feed" the sperm a sample of blood and certain herbs, and then waiting another extended incubation time, that a tiny 1-foot human would grow and mature. It supposedly looked fully mature, but was only that size in stature, and could be kept in the jar for study. This chapter in the black arts of Shelley's day actually interested her greatly, particularly the study of such alchemical greats as Paracelsus, Cornelius Agrippa, et cetera. It sounds hokey, but then again there are supposedly "1-foot skeletons" on display in a British museum retrieved from one of their labs centuries ago. So in the film, by showing Shelley at Byron's Villa Diodati discussing the creation of life, it was only fitting that these homunculuses were present as a historical/visually interesting tie-in. And that's the facts, sir.

  • Sept. 22, 1998, 8:56 p.m. CST

    Those jar thingies!

    by 0007

    Hey!, Believe it or not, those "jar thingies" are based off of real lore from Mary Shelley's time! They were called a "homunculus" by alchemists of the day who believed by placing semen in a jar and burying it for 40 days packed in horse manure, and then opening the lid to "feed" the sperm a sample of blood and certain herbs, and then waiting another extended incubation time, that a tiny 1-foot human would grow and mature. It supposedly looked fully mature, but was only that size in stature, and could be kept in the jar for study. This chapter in the black arts of Shelley's day actually interested her greatly, particularly the study of such alchemical greats as Paracelsus, Cornelius Agrippa, et cetera. It sounds hokey, but then again there are supposedly "1-foot skeletons" on display in a British museum retrieved from one of their labs centuries ago. So in the film, by showing Shelley at Byron's Villa Diodati discussing the creation of life, it was only fitting that these homunculuses were present as a historical/visually interesting tie-in. And that's the facts, sir.

  • Sept. 22, 1998, 10:07 p.m. CST

    For those interested in the monster

    by DED

    The best representation of what the creature was is oddly enough found in Frankenstein Unbound. ~DED

  • Sept. 23, 1998, 12:11 a.m. CST

    CGI MONSTERS

    by Jack Burton

    It is about time Universal did something with these classic monsters. I grew up on these great monster movies and with this movie coming out my son will have that opportunity too. I always loved the wolf-man and that old poem about the full moon and the wolfs bane. I pray to god that they use the original monster designs. If this movie is done right it could totally revitalize this genre for Universal pictures. I cant wait to see Lon Chaney Jr. as the tormented Larry Talbot again. Please dont screw this up!

  • Sept. 23, 1998, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Frankenstein v. Wolfman

    by Karl flaig

    To: Snake Plissken - not "everybody" knows that the Monster in "Frankenstein" is nameless. If people knew that, then the producers wouldn't call the damn movie "Frankenstein v. the Wolfman." Unless Dr. Vic is rising from the dead to tussle with the Wolfman, the movie's title is very misleading, but definitely feeds into the general public's ignorant misconceptions. As for feelings of superiority, well I must admit that I find the average joe to be just that, average. When a movie like "Titanic" gross billions of dollars it's a clear sign that the average moviegoer has an IQ slightly higher than Chauncey Gardner's. Naturally it's a little upsetting that great works are tarnished, misrepresented and completely ruined by vapid Hollywood producers, looking to cash in on name recognition. It's even more upsetting when all the jackasses making movies are falling all over each other to waste more money on lame CGI effects. Nothing says money well spent like seeing Cameron's silly CGI dolphins splashing around near an equally fake looking oceanliner. I think "Frankenstein" deserves more than a bad story, horrid acting and mediocre special effects. But then again, it hasn't gotten it thus far, so why hope for it in the future.

  • Sept. 24, 1998, 3:21 a.m. CST

    Cool Stuff

    by Steve Austin

    Wow! Just imagine putting Harry's face as the WOLFMAN!! They could then name the movie FRANKY VS HARRYWOLF. tz tz tz tz tz .... I'm just too fast fo' yo' home boyzzzzzz... The Six Million Dollar Man

  • Sept. 27, 1998, 7:36 a.m. CST

    creativity abrewin'

    by emore smizic

    Wow. This film is the epitime of creative techinical gurus playing god. I think they took the brain of forrest gumps inbred dog and placed it in the noggins of the universal studio execs. What a brilliant way to use groundbreaking technology. Can we please hold hands and say a prayer in honor of the ilm computers that are my gods. Life has just evolved forward.

  • Sept. 27, 1998, 8:12 a.m. CST

    Frankenstein movie

    by Yves Benoit

    I think it's a great project, especially if they use the classic designs...But I also hope that they type of horror in which these monsters evolved will be respected, instead of the blood and guts show we are now invited to. Horror movies were great in those years because they installed a feeling, a sensation. Now all they do is show blood, a little guts like the goal was to gross you out!

  • Sept. 28, 1998, 6:57 p.m. CST

    PSYCHO - FRANKENSTEIN

    by TonyDaley

    Agree: CGI vis-a-vis Jack Pierce would be great. In black and white. The touches would have to be mid-forties Universal--those particular textures. As for PSYCHO--no, please. But it's nice that Ellison got Bloch's widow some bread.

Top Talkbacks