'The Island of Dr. Moreau' Being Remade Again

[Walts Ghost]

Writers Hired For Another ‘Island of Dr. Moreau’ Remake

Briefly: Two writers have been hired to make a third film adaptation of H.G. Wells‘ 1896 novel The Island of Dr. Moreau. Warner Bros. tapped Lee Shipman and Brian McGreevy, producers on the Netflix show Hemlock Grove, to adapt the novel in a modern, socially conscious sci-fi film.

Click here to find out more!
The novel was first made into a movie in 1977, starring Burt Lancaster, and again in 1996, staring Marlon Brando. Both told the tale of a crazy scientist who creates humanoid creatures from animals. Leonardo DiCaprio’s Appian Way is among the producing partners.

Source

[Buscemi]

I read Hemlock Grove was awful.

Anyway, this could be a good project for David Cronenberg (in the event that he ever wanted to return to horror).

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by Buscemi

I read Hemlock Grove was awful.

Anyway, this could be a good project for David Cronenberg (in the event that he ever wanted to return to horror).

It was a pretty awful show.

[The Great Owl]

The "modern, socially conscious" description seems like the mother of all red flags.

I'll be interested to find out what the final result shapes up to be, though.

[esteban²]

Leonardo DiCaprio is involved. Might be the main part? I kinda hope so.

[blonde_devil]

if they just stick to the book, it would be a decent movie. but Hollywood being Hollywood, you know they won't. they will probably keep remaking this until they make it right - it may be the second movie with the "Dr Moreau" title but this movie has been made a few more times than that(Island of Lost Souls, etc).

[EricJ]

So, who gets to play the Panther Woman this time, even though she wasn't in the book?

(I remember seeing one filmed stage production that tried playing the story as a "repressed racial" allegory, where the hybrids were black actors without makeup, and ended with the Panther Woman escaping to the mainland now as a completely human liberated black woman with specist issues...
Y'know, I wouldn't put it past the "socially conscious" series, but think they're going for the Hemlock Grove ripoff instead.)

[Fortion]

seems fine to me lets see what happens

[klauswhereareyou]

5th, 6th.....20th times a charm maybe???

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

The "modern, socially conscious" description seems like the mother of all red flags.

Right - that means it could be like Elysium which was basically created to piss and moan about the plight of the poor and those mean, evil corporations/capitalists. Meanwhile, the film makers and stars are all trillionaires due to capitalism and corporations. Oh. Great.

[blonde_devil]

true enough about it not being a remake but then again, what exactly is a remake? a new adaption of an old movie. whatever you want to call it, it is the same thing in the end.

I think the major problem with making movies based off of stories from writers like Wells is that they were written before our modern age and the studios have a tendency to want to modernize them. if they stuck to the story as is, it would make an incredible movie but then they have to try and sell a period sci-fi film and let's be honest, the market for that is small. "nerd" culture might be popular right now but how many really understand the subject matter and how many are climbing on board and tossing on a Iron Man or Big Bang Theory(dumb, dumb show) shirt because it is the cool thing right now? plus just because you like Doctor Who doesn't mean you are going to like Star Trek so you can't really lump everyone together say the market is huge. they want these movies to be summer blockbusters like Independence Day but the story isn't meant for something like that.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

I think the major problem with making movies based off of stories from writers like Wells is that they were written before our modern age and the studios have a tendency to want to modernize them. if they stuck to the story as is, it would make an incredible movie but then they have to try and sell a period sci-fi film and let's be honest, the market for that is small.

OTOH, the 1960 George Pal version of "The Time Machine" sold itself as a period-clothes movie, stuck to the events in the book AND improved noticeably thereupon by following Wells's own social-statement sentiments to a more realized Hollywood form.
The 2002...........version, that gave us a cool ultra-villain, a romantic subplot and Na'vi-like PC Eloi? Nnnnot so much. (And that one was by Wells' grand-nephew, proving that you can be related and still get it wrong.)

Wells, for all his pamphlet-throwing, had a sense of plot (even the Tom Cruise "War of the Worlds" stays relatively close to the book in the second half, after they get the daddy-fantasy station-wagon stuff out of the way), but he could always use a more proactive second draft.
The 1977 Moreau had some useful notes of second-draft, the 90's......version? Nnnnnnot so much.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by EricJ

OTOH, the 1960 George Pal version of "The Time Machine" sold itself as a period-clothes movie, stuck to the events in the book AND improved noticeably thereupon by following Wells's own social-statement sentiments to a more realized Hollywood form.
The 2002...........version, that gave us a cool ultra-villain, a romantic subplot and Na'vi-like PC Eloi? Nnnnot so much. (And that one was by Wells' grand-nephew, proving that you can be related and still get it wrong.)

amazing how 50 years changes things, eh? now unless it is something in ancient times like The Tutors, people don't want to watch it. part of it too is that some ideas are just too above the average moviegoers head. thinks of War of the Worlds - what kills the invaders at the end of the story? the common cold virus! as strong and as advanced as they were, they couldn't survive something that we deal with every day. now put that into a movie today and people will say it is the dumbest idea they have ever heard. Hollywood has trained people well for the blockbuster movie. even I am Legend - totally change the meaning of the title because most people wouldn't get it otherwise. I think they might run into the same issue here - miss the point of the story. Watch, it will be some modern lab where they are working on genetic research and animals get lose. they think they caught them all but at the end the main character will return to civilization only to learn that the virus or whatever they used reached the mainland and everyone is changing over to animal hybrids. there, saved you going to the theatre - you can mail your $10 to me instead

[ditcin]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

Source

The novel was first made into a film in 1932 and entitled, ISLAND OF LOST SOULS.
-Scott

[charlieray1]

Originally Posted by ditcin

The novel was first made into a film in 1932 and entitled, ISLAND OF LOST SOULS.

Absolutely. And not only was it the first version, it's the best by a long shot. The 70's version was enjoyable if nothing special, the Brando one was a disaster. But the original was a dark, creepy masterpiece. H.G. Wells hated it and was glad when it was banned in England, but it has held up beautifully. Charles Laughton is wonderful, as is Bela Lugosi in a small role.

It's available on blu from Criterion.

[The Great Owl]

The 1932 film, Island of Lost Souls, differs in many ways from the H.G. Wells novel, but it captures the spirit of the novel better than anything since, in the same way that the Universal adaptations of Dracula and Frankenstein from that era somehow capture the spirit of those respective novels better than any films have done since then.

I have a soft spot for the 1977 adaptation of The Island of Dr. Moreau, though. It's a good old rugged adventure movie, Barbara Carrera is smoking hot, and Burt Lancaster lends a unique menace to the title role.

[fiveseven4combat]

Am I the only fan of the Kilmer/Brando version? It's one of my top films

[ForEver Blu]

The behind the scenes shitnanigans on the 1996 remake, equally as crazy as the movie.



Saw it in theaters back then with some friends.



Our reaction, equal parts and

[DenOfEarth]

Sounds nice but one thing, THIS ISN'T A FRIGGIN' REMAKE! this is another adaptation of the same source material, 1977 and 1996's movies were not "remakes" of Island of Lost Souls, they are all separate adaptations of the same source material and have nothing to do with each other. That's like saying every Dracula film is a "remake" of 1931's movie or 1922's silent classic Nosferatu or like saying I Am Legend is a "remake" of Omega Man or saying Omega Man is a "remake" of Last man on Earth or saying War of the Worlds from Spielberg is a "remake" of the 1953 film or 1988 film or saying LOTR is a "remake" of the cartoons, NO they are all separate and different adaptations that have nothing to do with each other.

It's kind of how it bugs me that Carpenter's The Thing is foolishly labeled a goddamn "remake" of Howard Hawks's The Thing from Another World, NO it wasn't the 2 films have little in common other than alien and winter. Carpenter's film is so different than the "original" 1951 film that it's a remake only in name and there was no film called "The Thing" in 1951 just The Thing from Another World as they have nothing to do with each other. They share a similar name but everything like the location (one in the north pole and the other in the south), the characters, the plot, the monster, the discovery of the alien, the discovery/origin of the spaceship, the nature/methods of the alien etc. are worlds apart from each other, i consider them 2 separate completely different adaptations of the same original source material being the novella "Who Goes There" by John Campbell. The first film to be based on the novella a and when i said "based", it completely ignored the novella and was a travesty of an adaptation, i mean it's a very good movie but a rather shitty adaptation that had little to do with the novella. Carpenter's film is the second film to be based on the novella yet is a standalone and completely independent yet excellent adaptation, even Carpenter has stated many times that his movie is not a remake of the earlier film but it is it's own film and Carpenter has stated his film is a re-adaptation of the novella.

I consider remakes and re-adaptations to be 2 separate things! remakes refer ONLY to films based on original ideas, original screenplays and original movies not based on source material, i mean if it says "based on the screenplay" then it's a remake. Like say "The Blob" or "Night of the Living Dead 1990" or "Hills Have Eyes', TRUE remakes in every sense. A re-adaptation means another adaptation of the same source material (comics, books and novellas) as if the credits say "based on the comic or based on the novel or based on the book by" like say The Thing, Dr. Moreau movies, Dracula and Frankenstein films, Girl with Dragon Tattoo, Carrie films, War of the Worlds, Charlie and The chocolate Factory, I Am Legend, Omega Man, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Dredd, Batman Begins etc.

The 1932 adaptation is indeed a classic no doubt and was glad it came out on BD 2 years ago, the 1977 adaptation needs a BD from Scream Factory and the 1996 adaptation was complete crap despite it did had great make-up by Stan Winston and not to mention Fairuza Balk as the hot panther woman.

I'd love to see David Cronenberg direct this one as it could have make up by Kurtzman and Co, it screams Cronenberg.

My favorite takes on this legendary story are the Batman TAS episode "Tyger Tyger" (Remember that one? the one where Selina Kyle got kidnapped by a mad scientist on an island to be turned into a very hot literal cat-woman ala Felicia or Cleo or Felicia or Aishia Clan Clan), The Simpsons parody, Freaked (Remember that movie?), Zombie Holocaust aka Dr. Butcher MD and Bagi The Monster of Mighty Nature by Tezuka (Excellent anime movie you can see on youtube).

Who thinks the story is quite influential even to films like Human Centipede and Splice?

[charlieray1]

Originally Posted by DenOfEarth

I consider remakes and re-adaptations to be 2 separate things! remakes refer ONLY to films based on original ideas, original screenplays and original movies not based on source material, i mean if it says "based on the screenplay" then it's a remake. . . . . the 1996 adaptation was complete crap despite it did had great make-up by Stan Winston and not to mention Fairuza Balk as the hot panther woman.

OK, it wasn't a remake. Except that the "hot panther woman" is a direct lift from the 1932 version -- she's not a character found in the book.