MovieChat Forums > Mad Monster Party? (1967) Discussion > Rankin-B@ssholes

Rankin-B@ssholes

posted 19 years ago by minister_pumpkin
11 replies | jump to latest

I hate to be the harbinger of bad news (that is, for those of you who haven't already heard), but a live-action remake of this timeless Halloween classic is in the works. But what is still more appalling is that Arthur Rankin, Jr. himself is attached to this...this thing.

Now, you just know that this remake is going to be dripping with CGI. To replace the charm of puppets with the vulgarity of computers is simply blasphemous! Has Hollywood learned nothing from the colossal failure of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and the awful Van Helsing? Both films featured an all-star cast of monsters and audiences could not have cared less. So why try it again and ravage a classic in the process?

I'm sure I speak for most fans when I say I hope the remake flops like a fish out of water.

[–] Henry_Rothschild 19 years ago

I just came across the remake while looking for the original earlier and had the same reaction.

I guess the thing I don't understand is why? The charm of the original was due to the fact that it came out during a second-coming of Monster popularity, not to mention the fact that they got Boris Karloff himself to voice the baron!

What make me cringe is the fact that I just KNOW they are going to try to "update" the monsters by basing them on modern versions of the monsters (like the greasy, long-haired bad-ass Dracula that somehow took place of the original, suave, elegant Dracula in modern retellings) or -- even worse -- pepper the entire thing with in-jokes and references to pop culture (since referencing popular culture has somehow come to replace actual comedy).

It's really sad, but at least I'll always have the original on DVD -- and no number of terrible remakes can ever take that away from me!

[–] Fluke_Skywalker 18 years ago

Wow, so it's going to be live action, eh? Yikes. At one point that may have gotten me excited, but I've lost complete and total faith in Hollyweird. They cry about DVD and movie piracy shrinking their profits, but the real culprit is bad story telling. You guys are dead on. Pop culture references, CGI. Blah!

"Use the Force, Fluke!"

[–] dannyconner 18 years ago

Hmmm, I actually enjoyed Van Helsing and League. I think it will be interesting to see a live action version, although I'd be suprised if it was actually released.

I also hope that they wouldn't make it more "adult." I deplore hollywood children's films nowadays. Such as Shrek and such. They have too much innuendo. I realize that Mad Monster Party has some definite adult aspects, but I think that changing these aspects would ruin it.

As long it's not adulterated in that aspect, I think I'll enjoy it a lot, but as a separate product.

[–] spidergrrl10 18 years ago

but whats worse is guess who is playing felix flankin?

none other than JACK BLACK....

i like jack black, but he would be awful for that part! yuckkkk

[–] ken63 18 years ago

First off where have we gotton the info that they are eve nmaking this..and second where did the info on Jack Black come from?

Honestly I am a big fan of this and as a filmaker I always had a dream of making this a live action movie. My idea was to have it live action as well as cgi and to also change the look of the actors to look more like the cartoon ( ie. give them more cartoonish peoprtions etc like in the show)

[–] pygmalion6 18 years ago

I always celebrate when remakes bomb at the box office and go down in flames. So you can imagine how drunk I must be by now since EACH AND EVERY REMAKE UNIVERSALLY FAILS both critically and with the ticket-buying public. But it makes me wonder why no one has learned their lesson? Perhaps the remakes are failing so quickly that there isn't time to absorb the idea that they've bombed.

But I stop celebrating when remakes pour their CGI grafitti over films I love. I doubt I'm alone in that the reason I love films like Mad Monster Party is that they are "of the time" from an era where there was fun innocence in this type of film instead of dull cynicism. And the previous posters are right: you can take it to the bank that this remake will be 100% double-entendre and will be written by people who have spent their careers writing birthday card fart jokes.

Taking this 1967 film and cramming it through the filter of the modern day will strip it of all its charm. Remakes have become a plague like the Black Death. We can only sit and wait to see which wonderful old film will be struck next.

[–] internetjunky1975 17 years ago

Trust me on the following: REMAKES ARE ONLY MADE BECAUSE HOLLYWOOD WILL NOT PAY SCREENPLAY WRITERS WHAT THEY'RE WORTH! The fall of Hollywood is imminent as the writer's guilds are about to strike for an indefinite amount of time to prove their worth to the suits. Should be a fun show in itself...and I'll love every second of it all...I'm a fanatical classic TV/classic movie fan and became one as a result of watching inferior newer works created in the rip-offs/re-workings/"updates" of earlier works. There's NUMEROUS original, watchable and enjoyable exceptions to the rule that "older=better;" I would never deny that reality. However, in the last 3-5 years I've watched a HUGE creativity drop-off...How it happened in my opinion:

1) 1940's things were still new and fresh, hence a birth of greatness

2) 1950's idealism rules the theaters and airwaves...media done with class, style and decorum...while STILL telling in-depth and at times controversial stories

3)1960's my favorite era...an equal mix of classy flicks and cutting edge social realism...Just plain crazy/creativeness swept the nation (could be drug related...)...AWESOME programming

4) 1970's nose-dive begins...How ya gonna compete with the brilliance of the 1960's media? There's numerous exceptions here...Star Wars and numerous others...

5) 1980's-the puke-tastic era..In my opinion...Too much being "relevant" crap, complete fakeness permeating the media presented as everyday life (see John Hughes movies for what I mean), sickeningly cheap and over-played premises, etc. Some exceptions exist here of course...Back to the Future being one I can list off the top of my head...

6) 1990's-The downward spiral is near completion...PC crap kills comedy, everything being touted as "the top grossing this that or the other," the era of test marketing gone wild, looks over substance templates running wild, and just a general ultra-laziness in creativity...Some exceptions exist here...Natural Born Killers, Falling Down and Friday come to mind...

7) 2000's-Forget about it...It now feels like Hollywood should take a 2-5 year break and re-group...Now days it's the same 12-15 actors/actresses/nepotism-hires in every movie...and where script-writing fails, let's just be disturbingly foul...and where an actor's/actress' skills aren't up to par, make sure they are, to quote Paris Swildung "Hawt" and where the studio is too cheap or lazy for location shoots, fill the *beep* with blue-screen CGI crap...VERY few exceptions here...Napoleon Dynamite comes to mind...

In short, Hollywood was/is/and may always be a town loaded with insane folks who are insanely overpaid, spoiled, whiny, sickening, hypocritical babies whose only skills (and some barely have this) are smiling for the camera and memorizing a book of words every few months...The plastic fraud was always present...Now we see it more than ever thanks to shared information technology on the net...WATCH for the media to take down the net via banning Youtube, free chatting, and untaxed net usage...Watch for the shallow morons takeover of ALL OF THIS, to take the power out of the audiences hands and attempt to put it back in their deceptive hands...

Add up a desperation power-grab on the media's part with this upcoming strike...and the crushed ego-panic will run wild...and again, should be the best media we've all seen in a while...There are, of course, exceptions to the rules related to the people of Hollywood as described here...Honestly though, I can think of none right off the top of my head...

Sorry for typing so much...if you read it all, I thank you...

[–] james-mac 10 years ago

I guess you were worried over nothing since it appears a remake never materialized. Still I agree with the sentiment. Most remakes tend to gut the the elements that made the original charming or interesting.

[–] josephbrando 9 years ago

I think it may have segued into that "Hotel Transylvania" crap which had a strangely similar plot as this - no writing royalties to be paid?

[–] mojo2004 9 years ago

but whats worse is guess who is playing felix flankin?

none other than JACK BLACK....

i like jack black, but he would be awful for that part! yuckkkk

Still mad at the 'King Kong' remake with Jack Black being horrible in the role played to perfection by Robert Armstrong in the original 1933 version of the film..

MOJO2004

[–] cookieman108 9 years ago

"So why try it again and ravage a classic in the process?'

Not to be snarky but how is the original (1967 version) going to be altered, or ravaged? Will it be unavailable for viewing once the remake is released? If not, then they can release 500 remakes and it wouldn't make any difference to me. I have more of an issue with those who decide to alter or re-imagine previously produced productions and remove opportunities to view the films as they were originally shown.