Bride of Frankenstein remake

[Anthony Caranci]

I'm not getting the impression it's an actual "remake" of James Whale's film, I'm leaping to the conclusion it will be a very different story.  I'm guessing no Dr. Pretorius, for one thing.  I don't personally think you can remake that character!   

I guess they could set it however they want! I just don't believe there are some things that should be messed with. In trying to market The Wolf Man to a whole new generation of fans - they completely screwed it up! The screenplay was garbage. Sir John became  the villain - and that doesn't work. Then they add a "real life figure" named Inspector Frederick Abberline who investigated the Jack The Ripper Murders. They forgot that one of the aspects that makes The 1941 Wolf Man so timeless is the "simplicity" of the storyline. They padded it with too much BS! Talbot's mother being considered a gypsy whore is so stupid!

Director Joe Johnston called it "an intelligent screenplay." It was more like The Cat In The Hat Strikes Back!

Don't get me wrong - I do like some modern horror films. The Underworld films I like - though it took a little time to get past the automatic weapons. Stephen Somers Mummy films are fun. I thought his take on the Mummy was a good direction to go in. Van Helsing had great visuals, but the design of Frankenstein was not to my liking. Still, great composers furnished wonderful music to accompany each film.

I maybe 62 - but I try to keep an open mind. I also try to change with the times. I'm also smart enough to know that - just because I have the power to do something -- it doesn't always mean that I should.

Perhaps I may have miss-read the name of this thread. I thought it said "Bride of Frankenstein Remake." Here's the opening post from Big Bad Wolf:

"So as most of you guys know, Universal wants to do a brand new cinematic universe with their classic monsters. Next year's The Mummy is the first one out of the gate. Another film in the works is a (sort of) remake of Bride of Frankenstein. Not much is known aside from rumors that Universal is trying to get Angelina Jolie to lead the film as the Bride and Javier Bardem for the role of the original monster. Recent comments from screenwriter David Koepp (Jurassic Park, Spider-Man, the upcoming Inferno) shed some light on the approach they're going to take."

I guess we'll have to see what Universal means by "sort of a remake of Bride of Frankenstein."

[Ludi]

That the Bride is  the lead character and the film will be overtly feminist (I guess) makes it seem like it will be a very different storyline from Whale's film.  Maybe a "remake" only because it will contain the Bride and the Monster, and Frankenstein, but I've not seen anything about the other characters from Whale's film.   Remove too many elements and it's no longer a "remake" it's a completely different movie with a few similar characters.  So it might be less offensive than taking characters from the original film and screwing with them.

[Haunted hearse]

I guess they could set it however they want! I just don't believe there are some things that should be messed with. In trying to market The Wolf Man to a whole new generation of fans - they completely screwed it up! The screenplay was garbage. Sir John became  the villain - and that doesn't work. Then they add a "real life figure" named Inspector Frederick Abberline who investigated the Jack The Ripper Murders. They forgot that one of the aspects that makes The 1941 Wolf Man so timeless is the "simplicity" of the storyline. They padded it with too much BS! Talbot's mother being considered a gypsy whore is so stupid!

Director Joe Johnston called it "an intelligent screenplay." It was more like The Cat In The Hat Strikes Back!

Don't get me wrong - I do like some modern horror films. The Underworld films I like - though it took a little time to get past the automatic weapons. Stephen Somers Mummy films are fun. I thought his take on the Mummy was a good direction to go in. Van Helsing had great visuals, but the design of Frankenstein was not to my liking. Still, great composers furnished wonderful music to accompany each film.

I'm a couple of years younger at 60 this month.  I also liked the Mummy remake, but liked the followup films a lot less.  Bride of Frankenstein can use little from the original novel, because Frankenstein destroyed the bride before she was brought to life.  That actually might be the approach, because the film could be real short, and far more watchable, then what we will probably get with what Universal releases.  No doubt lots of CGI; and a politically correct storyline about oppression from the patriarchy, where the bride goes on a rampage after her microagressions are triggered when the villagers violate her safe space.

[mjaycox]

What?!

You tell me they are remaking "The Bride" with Sting and Jennifer Beals?

Is nothing sacred?



Matt

[Ludi]

Is it necessarily "politically correct" for the Bride to go on a rampage?  Can she not just go on a rampage because she's a monster and an outsider?  Does she need to become a feminist icon, I wonder?  Not saying it would be wrong if she does, but does she need to be marketed as such?  Does the film need to be that calculated - can't it just be a monster movie, for crying out loud? 

[Haunted hearse]

I think they should get Paul Fieg to make the film, and have Melissa McCarthy play Baroness Von Frankenstein, with Leslie Jones as her creation.  In the reboot, Leslie Jones escapes the Baroness' castle, because the Baroness doesn't respect her as a person, but keep demeaning her, because she just can't see beyond her being a created object.  But when the Monster learns the villagers have captured the Baroness when the local pastor Rev. Jack Chick accuses the Baron of consorting with Satan because of his grave robbing, the monster wreaks havoc on the villagers, and rescues Baroness Frankenstein.  They fall in love, and move to the new world, where they set up an antique boutique together.

[Ludi]

Not a feminist bookstore?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FPFUrXbQgc

(sorry)

[Chakor Channing]

I think they should get Paul Fieg to make the film, and have Melissa McCarthy play Baroness Von Frankenstein, with Leslie Jones as her creation.  In the reboot, Leslie Jones escapes the Baroness' castle, because the Baroness doesn't respect her as a person, but keep demeaning her, because she just can't see beyond her being a created object.  But when the Monster learns the villagers have captured the Baroness when the local pastor Rev. Jack Chick accuses the Baron of consorting with Satan because of his grave robbing, the monster wreaks havoc on the villagers, and rescues Baroness Frankenstein.  They fall in love, and move to the new world, where they set up an antique boutique together.

The pain of the "Ghostbusters" reboot doesn't go away easily, does it HH?

[Big Bad Wolf]

The hyperbole is cute and all but I don't see how whining about Ghostbusters is relevant to this thread. I don't give a damn about the new Ghostbusters. It was mediocre at best and as a film I won't rush to defend it in spite of any genuine faults it may have, and it has plenty of those. Either way the frequent suggestions that some kind of political agenda is responsible for that film being such a mess just seem childish to me. Nothing about the film seemed to be political when I watched it. Either way none of it has anything to do with Bride of Frankenstein, either the new film or the original.

Whether you guys know it or not, or like it or not, Frankenstein is a feminist novel by a feminist author, and the original Bride of Frankenstein is based on it about as much as its predecessor is, so I can't think of any logical reason why a new Bride of Frankenstein film can't draw from the novel as much as it does the film (and for all we know it may not draw much from either source). There are plenty of reasons to be wary about this upcoming film, from the modern day setting to the more action-oriented blockbuster approach and all that could bring with it, but including feminist themes is one thing that's faithful to the original source material (meaning the novel). I refuse to indulge in the fantasy narrative that such themes are a pandemic on modern filmmaking and should be discouraged and criticized ad nauseam.

I understand the reluctance to embrace new films based on these characters but if we're going to criticize them, we should criticize them for legitimate problems instead of whining about the inclusion of feminist themes in a film that owes its existence to a novel that also included feminist themes.

For crying out loud, the movie doesn't even exist yet. There's no way of knowing that this will be the defining characteristic of the film, or that it'll be marketed as such, both things I highly doubt will be the case.

[Chakor Channing]

BBW...  Pardon me if I sound ignorant for asking, but were you referring to HH's post, my response to HH, or both?

[Haunted hearse]

The hyperbole is cute and all but I don't see how whining about Ghostbusters is relevant to this thread.

I never mentioned Ghostbusters once in my post.  Sure, I mentioned the Director, and two of the stars, but I was concocting a film idea that might be worthwhile going to see for how laughably awful it might be.  I was honestly making fun of the whole Tumblr approach toward film making, and how bad a film about the Bride of Frankenstein could be.  Any film involving a female monster will have to be wildly different from what Mary Shelly wrote, since Baron Frankenstein destroyed the monster's mate, before bringing her to life.  However, James Whale was still able to make a great film about the Monster's intended mate.  By the way, there was a bride of Frankenstein in the film, but that wasn't the character played by Elsa Lancaster.  Elsa Lancaster's character rejected the Monster, and found him unacceptable.
   Can a film be made, with empowered female characters, and be good?  Yes!  Buffy and Xena were female centered series that were wildly popular with fan boys.  Many guys have enjoyed the current "My Little Pony" show, and the original "Powerpuff Girls". (I find the reboot meh.)   The only reason Sony faked a controversy about guys being upset about the new Ghostbusters film having female characters was that the New Ghostbuster film sucked, and it would have sucked just as bad if they had used male Ghostbusters.  The new bride of Frankenstein film could be great, but if this film is going to sacrifice story telling or character to follow an agenda, expect the film to suck, and hope it at least sucks enough to be entertaining because of how bad it will be.

[Ludi]

For crying out loud, the movie doesn't even exist yet. There's no way of knowing that this will be the defining characteristic of the film, or that it'll be marketed as such, both things I highly doubt will be the case.

It's already being promoted (if not "marketed") as such by the screenwriter.  He should know what the film is about!

"KOEPP: I loved it. It's one of my favorite scripts I've written in years because if you reimagine the Frankenstein story, it gets into so many issues of men trying to feel dominant over women. To create someone who then says, "You don't own me," it becomes a tale of liberation. It was great. It was really fun, and I hope it gets going soon because I think it'd make for a great movie."

http://collider.com/bride-of-frankenstein-remake-story-details-david-koepp/

Just to clarify, I don't believe it is wrong or bad to include feminist themes in the film, as you point out, the themes are there in the original source material.  My (small) concern is that the film might be created and marketed as " a feminist film" and not as "a monster movie."  Though I understand there is subtext, deliberate or even unintentional, in classic monster movies (such as the original BOF which has become "a gay film"), I prefer monster movies which are monster movies, personally.  And the new BOF might be one. I can hope!

[bromstaker]

Whether you guys know it or not, or like it or not, Frankenstein is a feminist novel by a feminist author, and the original Bride of Frankenstein is based on it about as much as its predecessor is, so I can't think of any logical reason why a new Bride of Frankenstein film can't draw from the novel as much as it does the film (and for all we know it may not draw much from either source). There are plenty of reasons to be wary about this upcoming film, from the modern day setting to the more action-oriented blockbuster approach and all that could bring with it, but including feminist themes is one thing that's faithful to the original source material (meaning the novel). I refuse to indulge in the fantasy narrative that such themes are a pandemic on modern filmmaking and should be discouraged and criticized ad nauseam.

I understand the reluctance to embrace new films based on these characters but if we're going to criticize them, we should criticize them for legitimate problems instead of whining about the inclusion of feminist themes in a film that owes its existence to a novel that also included feminist themes.

I'm aware Mary Shelly was a feminist, but I've never picked up on any feminist themes in the novel. It's been a long while since I've read the novel, but I simply don't recall any feminist themes. There is the underlying theme of the existential conflict of creator/creature, and the whole bit of the creature being an outsider rejected by society. 

[Ludi]

Here's the main feminist portion of the novel, from a brief glance around the internet:

"She who, in all probability, was to become a thinking and reasoning animal, might refuse to comply with a compact made before her creation. They might even hate each other; the creature who already lived loathed his own deformity, and might h he not conceive a greater abhorrence for it when it came before his eyes in the female form? She also might turn with disgust from him to the superior beauty of man; she might quit him, and he be again alone, exasperated by the fresh provocation by being deserted by one of his own species."

http://electrastreet.net/2014/11/monstrosity-and-feminism-in-frankenstein/

http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/1818v3/f3301.html

(I have not located additional feminist bits)

[Anthony Caranci]

Quote from Haunted Hearse:

"I also liked the Mummy remake, but liked the follow-up films a lot less."

This is my point! When it comes to "updating their Monsters" -- Universal has had more failure than success!

Okay, the movie doesn't exist yet - and we may get something worth talking about. I'm not trying to condemn it before it's released. But based on Universal's track record from 1999 until now? A record that has already been proven? I'm not expecting too much.

Hopefully, it will pan out for the best. I would like to see a Creature From The Black Lagoon remake - provided the storyline is kept simple like the original, and the design for "Uncle Gill-Bert is not overdone.