Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

The ILM-UNIVERSAL FRANKENSTEIN gets Greenlit

CGI by Taxman	Sep 22nd, 1998 01:01:12 AM
Put the faces of old dead stars into a CGI movie? That sounds really sick, and I hope it ain't going to happen.
Since when does ILM make their own movies!?? by John McLame	Sep 22nd, 1998 02:25:44 AM
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!
Frankenstein by mcmurphy	Sep 22nd, 1998 03:19:37 AM
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 ?
Why is it cool? by fig	Sep 22nd, 1998 07:23:36 AM
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.
Timmy,Be quiet or no Tellytubbies vibrator! by Santa Claws	Sep 22nd, 1998 07:28:49 AM
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
Busts of Karloff&Chaney by m0nsTerGrrrL	Sep 22nd, 1998 07:46:31 AM
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/
The Dead Walk! by Pat Hobby	Sep 22nd, 1998 07:47:58 AM
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.
NEW AGE MOVIES by Dragon	Sep 22nd, 1998 07:59:38 AM
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.
Why map the faces? by Dudge	Sep 22nd, 1998 08:51:01 AM
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.
Danny Elfman? Cool. by ethank	Sep 22nd, 1998 11:35:47 AM
This movie would be made for Elfman. I've been very anxious for him to score some more Halloween themed animation. Anyhow...
Frankenstein by Omega	Sep 22nd, 1998 01:01:10 PM
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.
Karloff shall forever live on by Kyle Osburn	Sep 22nd, 1998 01:42:10 PM
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
NOW ITS BEGGING??? by Q	Sep 22nd, 1998 03:19:00 PM
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.
Well at least... by Terminator	Sep 22nd, 1998 03:55:16 PM
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.
Bela Lugosi played the monster in Frankenstein vs. Wolfman!!! by MacJedi	Sep 22nd, 1998 04:42:32 PM
I believe that Bela Lugosi played Frankenstein in Frankenstein vs. Wolfman so why would they make a cgi face of Boris Karloff???
Those jar thingies! by 0007	Sep 22nd, 1998 08:53:55 PM
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.
Those jar thingies! by 0007	Sep 22nd, 1998 08:56:03 PM
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.
For those interested in the monster by DED	Sep 22nd, 1998 10:07:09 PM
The best representation of what the creature was is oddly enough found in Frankenstein Unbound. ~DED
CGI MONSTERS by Jack Burton	Sep 23rd, 1998 12:11:07 AM
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!
Frankenstein v. Wolfman by Karl flaig	Sep 23rd, 1998 11:27:39 AM
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.
Cool Stuff by Steve Austin	Sep 24th, 1998 03:21:57 AM
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
creativity abrewin' by emore smizic	Sep 27th, 1998 07:36:41 AM
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.
Frankenstein movie by Yves Benoit	Sep 27th, 1998 08:12:29 AM
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!
PSYCHO - FRANKENSTEIN by TonyDaley	Sep 28th, 1998 06:57:05 PM
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.
Universal Frankenstein? Like Universal Soldier? by Wolfpack	Jun 1st, 2006 07:41:37 AM

Talkbacks

The ILM-UNIVERSAL FRANKENSTEIN gets Greenlit

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks