Can someone argue their preference for ZONTAR vs. IT CONQUERED?

[ChristineBCW]

Lugosi, that's about how I feel.  And those photos... yes, winning arguments.  And so silly for IT CONQ because it's just a foam-rubber cone with someone on their knees, crawling forward, waving silly lobster arms.  This had to be one of the dumbest looking monsters of all the '50s films, yet it's such a hoot.  The silly Saucer Men would be in contention for "silly" honors, too, but those great needle-fingers of theirs, and an attack on a cow.  Car tires... what a hoot.

And consider the poster wars, too:



vs.



Of course, I realize these may not have been the original posters, but it's obvious the Poster Babe is going to win with IT CONQUERED.

[LugosiFan25]

And so silly for IT CONQ because it's just a foam-rubber cone with someone on their knees, crawling forward, waving silly lobster arms.  This had to be one of the dumbest looking monsters of all the '50s films, yet it's such a hoot.  The silly Saucer Men would be in contention for "silly" honors, too, but those great needle-fingers of theirs, and an attack on a cow.  Car tires... what a hoot.

Maybe dumb looking....but you're guaranteed to never forget it! I couldn't tell you what villain looked like what from one of the Thor movies or something like that...but I will never forget IT!!! or the Saucermen...or any of the other great Blaisdell monsters.

In reality, I think it makes them even more iconic and important.

[ChristineBCW]

Consider the posters for SAUCER MEN, one of my all-time favorites:



vs...

uh... hmmm... I can't find an authentic ATTACK OF EYE CREATURES poster.  I see a couple from "The Crawling Eye" and maybe some screen-caps for VHS covers... and maybe that says a whole lot, there.  "No good poster."

[ChristineBCW]

Y'know, the "silly" issues were probably discarded automatically - no one went to these films requiring CGI dino realism.  "Silly" was, as Lugosi points out, merely a stepping stone to "memorable" and "word of mouth" next-day chatter to get more ticket-buying customers.

And to further echo Lugosi's commentary, "I couldn't tell you what the villains/monsters looked like in ____" (insert any of the 500 latest "universe" films.  Yawn). 

[LugosiFan25]

Y'know, the "silly" issues were probably discarded automatically - no one went to these films requiring CGI dino realism.  "Silly" was, as Lugosi points out, merely a stepping stone to "memorable" and "word of mouth" next-day chatter to get more ticket-buying customers.

And to further echo Lugosi's commentary, "I couldn't tell you what the villains/monsters looked like in ____" (insert any of the 500 latest "universe" films.  Yawn).

It's something lost on today's culture. I don't want everything that I watch to "look" real. I want to go to another place when I watch a movie. I want the fantastic and wacky and ridiculous (in a good way). I want the cheese and corn and everything in between. And that's why I'll take a monster suit or makeup above CGI. I don't register with or remember CGI robots with a cajillion moving parts or CGI characters that move so much I can't tell what they are even doing on screen. I register with a makeup or suit or mask that someone took the time to create (whether they took five minutes or five months).

Long live Paul Blaisdell, Jack Pierce, and all of the other artists who make up our Monster Kid lives.

[LugosiFan25]

And I know it doesn't fit the topic...but while we are on the subject of Blaisdell monsters....who can forget the OTHER It...



..The Terror From Beyond Space!

[ChristineBCW]

Yes, Blaisdell a perfect candidate for "Too Good Not To Be Mentioned".  Here's his IMDB page.

And he was someone that could fit into costume parties any ol' time, like in GHOST OF DRAGSTRIP HOLLOW.

[ChristineBCW]

It's something lost on today's culture. I don't want everything that I watch to "look" real.

I find myself harshly criticizing the creatures in CGI films to a standard far beyond previous standards of monster-dom.  I'd never once fretted over The Wolf Man or The She Creature, or the silly wobbling arm-lets on THE DAY THE WORLD ENDED's mutation...



but I'll tirelessly complain about Peter Jackson's 2005 KING KONG that use the 1976 Atari "ice effects" and call those modern.  HAH!

I think this is the "Tall Pedestal" Effect.  When the CGI'ers go for highest 'realism', then any slightest failure should be rewarded with the highest failure rating.  What's odd is to see our children and their friends - who've grown up on monster movies, Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, etc - bring up the same types of criticism.  "They said it was going to be real, but I like the dinosaurs in the original King Kong a lot better."   Of course, I had to wake them up several times in that first hour or so before Peter Jackson had monsters' appear, too, whereas they'll sit on the edge of their seats for the Willis O'Brien version from the opening credits on.  They DO complain about the men being allowed to kill the stegosaurus, by the way.  And the airplanes... at the end... "It's not even fair."

[LugosiFan25]

It's interesting because when comparing the original films like Invasion of the Saucermen to remakes like The Eye Creatures, the quality of monsters (and films) clearly dips. Yet as we have pointed out, sometimes the films still hold a soft spot in our hearts.

But that isn't the case with the Jackson KONG. While it's clear that Jackson is a big fan of the 33 KONG and is trying his darndest to pay homage to it, it's the soulless computer graphics that permeate the stinker that drives me away. (and it's ridiculous running time. Seriously. Why are movies so stinking long nowadays?)

[ChristineBCW]

...it's the soulless computer graphics that permeate the stinker that drives me away. (and it's ridiculous running time...)

I really enjoyed the incredibly long first-hour of Jackson's film.  It was a tale worth telling.  Once.  However, I knew even in the big-screen, huge audience watching this would render half of the film un-re-watchable.  And true to that point, I've never been able to sit thru that first hour without fast-forwarding thru five's and tens' of minutes.  And as much as I wanted to like Naomi Watts, gosh, that dance-scene is simply PAINFUL.  "Hey - let's go get root canals, everyone!"  Uh... what?!!  "Or we can watch Naomi dance..."  It would be times like that where the dental drill might ACTUALLY be a more welcome sound.  gag...

There should be rules - commandments - for film makers: "Thou shalt not make ANY SCENE where dental drills become considered alternatives."  

It's simply too long, too fat, too DULL.  "Soulless" indeed.   And I haven't even started my usual rant against the 207-mile deep canyon in which TV Wrestling explores two-out-of-three falls.  (OK OK, it's only HALF that deep...)

[ChristineBCW]

(And thanks for all comments about ZONTAR and Buchanan's remakes. 

Did anyone see the Buchanan versions first, and then the originals?  Would that possibly help the Buchanan ratings?