"Hellboy’ Reboot Aims for “Darker, More Gruesome” Take" Topic

"Earlier this week, we learned that a new Hellboy movie is in the works, but the news was bittersweet. While fans of the hell demon / occult detective were understandably thrilled to hear that he'd be making a return to the big screen, fans of Guillermo del Toro‘s previous adaptations starring Ron Perlman were just as understandably disappointed. Due to a number of factors, del Toro is not involved with this reboot. However, Hellboy creator Mike Mignola himself announced that David Harbour (Stranger Things) is taking on the title role while Neil Marshall (The Descent) is in talks to direct.

The reboot is intended to be an R-rated adaptation if screenwriters Andrew Cosby, Christopher Golden and Mignola have their way. In a chat with Cosby, Silverscreen Beat (via CS) managed to get an early idea of what the tone and maturity level of the reboot is intended to be. Millennium Films is currently in negotiations with producers Larry Gordon and Lloyd Levin for the reboot, which has the evocative working title of Hellboy: Rise of the Blood Queen…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Too bad. Loved Guillermo and Ron Perlman. Not really interested in a "darker, more gruesome" take.

Actually I've always thought an R rating is more befitting the Hellboy character. Del Toro should've given it the 'Blade' treatment in the first place but decided to take the safer family-friendly route. With R-rating gaining more acceptance thanks to movies like 'Kick-Ass,' 'Kingsmen: The Secret Service' and 'Deadpool' it is only to be expected that more directors would risk making R-rated comic book movies.

Are reboots every dozen to half dozen years or so the thing now? The new normal?

They keep missing the target and so they decide to give more money to a new director who is just as likely to make the movie "his own" and not the way the creators visualized it? Rinse. Repeat.

Dan

Yes, keeps them from having to risk capital on new ideas. They just repackage stuff that's worked in the past, sort of.

The franchise syndrome. 100 mundane burger joints vs the best diner in town. You know what to expect in the chain restaurant but the diner can be a novel experience worth the risk.

The studio system had it's flaws but they knew how to put out a good movie. The corporate version is all about profit with limited risk. You didn't have to sit through citizen Kane 4.

…now, even if the actor dies, they just cobble together a CGI mockup and make the poor soul appear in perpetuity.

Or they can make something new like "Dunkirk", instead of redoing Star Trek for the 6th time or is it 7 now.

Too bad – Perlman was the perfect Hellboy

"The studio system had it's flaws but they knew how to put out a good movie. The corporate version is all about profit with limited risk. You didn't have to sit through citizen Kane 4."

I can't agree with you there. Although there are a lot of great, classic movies from the past, nowadays we see only a small fraction of what was produced and there has always been FAR more dreck than really good films. And it has ALWAYS been about profit!

I agree. There was a lot of dreck. I forgot what a high volume of output was made and mercifully buried.
My previous post was poorly thought out.

Word is that Perlman's replacement is David Harbour, who sports a similarly oversized forehead:

It's still early and things are subject to change of course, but Neil Marshall ('Dog Soldiers' and 'The Descent') is rumored to direct.

Other than the fact that it's a reboot, it might not be so bad after all.