Vincent Price had already helped make The Fly a memorable part of horror cinema when David Cronenberg revisited the story nearly three decades later. But the 1986 remake took the familiar science-fiction premise in a radically different direction, replacing much of the original’s campier atmosphere with a disturbing exploration of physical transformation, scientific ambition and human deterioration.
The difference between the two films was impossible to ignore. And when Price eventually watched Cronenberg’s version, his response offered an interesting glimpse into how dramatically horror filmmaking had changed between the late 1950s and the 1980s.
Vincent Price’s connection to the original The Fly began in 1958
Before Cronenberg’s remake became one of the most recognised horror films of its era, The Fly was introduced to audiences through director Kurt Neumann’s 1958 science-fiction horror film, based on George Langelaan’s short story.
Price played an important role in that original production, although he was not the scientist who undergoes the terrifying transformation. That character was André Delambre, played by David Hedison.
Instead, Price portrayed François Delambre, André’s brother, who becomes involved in the disturbing aftermath of his sibling’s scientific experiment.
The original film established the central concept that would later inspire Cronenberg’s interpretation. A scientist develops a machine capable of transporting matter, but an experiment goes wrong when a housefly becomes part of the process.
Almost 30 years later, that same premise would return to cinemas with a considerably darker emotional and visual approach.
More David Fincher Movie Coverage
Movie fans interested in major filmmakers revisiting established characters can also explore another recent story involving a high-profile director and franchise continuation. Our Tarantino Cliff Booth sequel report covers the first footage shown from the upcoming film.
How David Cronenberg transformed The Fly into a different kind of horror film
Released on August 15, 1986, The Fly was directed by David Cronenberg, with a screenplay credited to Charles Edward Pogue and Cronenberg. Stuart Cornfeld produced the film.
Jeff Goldblum took on the lead role of Seth Brundle, while Geena Davis played Veronica Quaife and John Getz portrayed Stathis Borans.
The film runs for 96 minutes and carries an R rating, according to 20th Century Studios.
However, Cronenberg’s interpretation was never intended to be a straightforward recreation of Neumann’s original. Rather than simply expanding the earlier science-fiction story, the filmmaker rebuilt its emotional centre around Brundle and Veronica.
The result was a story about scientific ambition, romantic attachment and the gradual loss of humanity.
The Museum of Modern Art has described the 1986 film as a serious reinterpretation of the original, transforming its basic premise into a slow-burning romantic tragedy.
The production history included an abandoned Vincent Price cameo
The remake’s journey to the screen also involved several important creative changes.
According to the AFI Catalog, the project initially entered preproduction in England in 1985, with Robert Bierman attached to direct. However, Bierman left the production following a family tragedy, after which Cronenberg was hired.
Principal photography began in Toronto on December 1, 1985.
Cronenberg subsequently rewrote substantial portions of Pogue’s screenplay. Interestingly, AFI records his observation that almost all of the depiction of Seth Brundle’s transformation was already present in Pogue’s original screenplay, even though Cronenberg made considerable changes elsewhere.
He also removed some of the campier elements associated with the 1958 film and eliminated a planned Vincent Price cameo.
This detail adds another connection between Price and the remake’s production history. Although he was closely associated with the original and was considered in the context of the new film, he did not appear in Cronenberg’s finished version.
Vincent Price eventually watched the 1986 remake
Price’s thoughts on the remake are particularly interesting because they were recorded in his own words rather than reconstructed through later accounts.
During a 1987 interview preserved in the Golden Globes’ oral-history archive, the veteran horror actor reflected on Cronenberg’s interpretation and acknowledged its considerable strengths.
His assessment was not an outright rejection. Price described the film as “very, very good and very exciting”, while also recognising that it had done tremendous business.
But there was one aspect of the remake that made his viewing experience considerably less enjoyable.
Price explained:
“It is so violent. It really put me off until the end of it.”
He added that he found himself laughing because of how many people were killed or transformed during the story.
Price also compared the remake with the 1958 original, explaining that the earlier production had been subject to censorship restrictions that required filmmakers to leave more to the audience’s imagination.
His comments reveal a more complicated reaction than simply disliking a modern horror remake. He recognised Cronenberg’s achievement but was uncomfortable with how explicitly the film presented its horrific material.
Why Cronenberg’s The Fly was so much more disturbing
One of the biggest differences between the two productions was the way they approached the scientist’s transformation.
The 1958 film was made under a substantially different censorship environment. Price specifically connected the contrast between the original and the remake to the relaxation of censorship following the end of the Hollywood Production Code era.
By 1986, Cronenberg had considerably more freedom to make the physical consequences of the experiment central to the story.
Instead of treating the transformation as a relatively contained science-fiction concept, the remake follows Brundle through a prolonged deterioration of his body and behaviour.
The changes are gradual, allowing the audience to witness the consequences of the experiment as they become increasingly difficult to ignore.
The Los Angeles Times described the film as both a horror movie and a romantic tragedy, recognising its extremely graphic material while praising the performances of Goldblum and Davis and the work of the effects team.
Cronenberg was already known for exploring disturbing transformations of the human body, and The Fly gave him an opportunity to bring that filmmaking approach to a recognisable studio property.
Jeff Goldblum’s Seth Brundle became the emotional centre of the remake
Goldblum’s interpretation of Seth Brundle was fundamentally different from the scientist at the centre of the original film.
Brundle is a reclusive scientist who develops teleportation technology using two machines known as telepods. His work attracts the attention of Veronica Quaife, a science journalist who becomes interested in his research.
Their professional relationship eventually develops into a romantic one.
After successfully transporting objects, Brundle decides to test his invention on himself. What he does not realise is that a housefly has entered the telepod alongside him.
The experiment goes wrong, causing his genetic material to fuse with that of the insect.
According to 20th Century Studios and the AFI Catalog, this scientific accident forms the central premise of the 1986 film.
However, Brundle does not immediately understand the consequences of what has happened. As his physical and mental condition begins changing, he initially interprets the experience as evidence that the experiment has somehow improved him.
That confidence gradually disappears as the transformation becomes increasingly difficult to control.
The BFI has interpreted the film as a meditation on death, disease and disintegration, while also highlighting the relationship between Brundle and Veronica.
This emotional dimension helps explain why Cronenberg’s remake became more than a conventional creature feature. Its disturbing physical imagery was directly connected to the deterioration of a relationship and the gradual loss of an individual.
The Fly’s Oscar-winning practical effects made the transformation unforgettable
The physical effects became one of the defining achievements of the 1986 production.
Chris Walas and Stephan Dupuis were responsible for the film’s makeup effects, which allowed Brundle’s transformation to unfold progressively throughout the story.
Rather than presenting the audience with a single creature reveal, the film shows the scientist’s condition developing over time.
His changing appearance is accompanied by changes in his behaviour and his relationship with Veronica. This makes the practical effects an essential part of the narrative rather than simply an opportunity to shock viewers.
The work received major industry recognition at the 59th Academy Awards in 1987.
Chris Walas and Stephan Dupuis won the Academy Award for Makeup for The Fly. The Academy’s official records list the film as the winner in the category.
The Museum of Modern Art has also highlighted the multilayered prosthetic effects as central to the film’s identity, noting how Cronenberg and Pogue transformed the original’s drive-in campiness into a serious romantic tragedy.
Why The Fly became more than a conventional horror remake
The film’s lasting reputation is closely connected to its combination of horror and emotional storytelling.
The 1958 original belonged to the science-fiction horror tradition of its time. Cronenberg’s version, meanwhile, used the same basic premise to explore mortality, physical deterioration and the consequences of scientific ambition.
The Los Angeles Times recognised the romantic tragedy at the heart of the remake, praising Goldblum and Davis for bringing emotional weight to the story.
MoMA similarly emphasised the relationship between Brundle and Veronica as the film’s emotional foundation.
The BFI’s analysis connects the transformation to broader ideas about illness, mortality and the deterioration of the body. It also places the film within the cultural context of the 1980s, when the AIDS epidemic was reshaping public conversations about disease and death.
These interpretations help explain why the film has continued to attract serious critical attention rather than being remembered exclusively for its creature effects.
The 1986 remake achieved commercial and critical recognition
Despite the intensity that Price found uncomfortable, Cronenberg’s film proved successful with audiences.
Box Office Mojo records approximately $60.6 million in worldwide theatrical grosses, including around $40.5 million domestically, against its 1986 release.
Its Academy Award victory for Makeup further established the importance of its practical effects.
The film’s reputation has also endured across generations. In 2026, the Siskel Film Center presented The Fly as part of a 40th-anniversary screening.
The centre described it as a combination of romantic comedy, science fiction, horror and a parable about the consequences of hubris.
That anniversary recognition offers another indication of how the film continues to be appreciated as more than a conventional horror remake.
Vincent Price’s reaction was not simply a rejection of Cronenberg’s vision
Looking back at Price’s 1987 comments, the most important distinction is that he never dismissed the remake’s overall quality.
He acknowledged that it was exciting, praised it as a very good film and recognised its commercial success. His discomfort came from the level of violence and the explicit presentation of the transformation.
His comparison with the 1958 original also highlighted how much horror filmmaking had changed between the two productions.
Price had spent much of his career working in the horror genre, making his response particularly interesting. His criticism was not simply an objection to horror itself, but a reaction to the degree of violence Cronenberg brought to a story with which he was already closely associated.
AFI’s production history also confirms that Cronenberg deliberately moved away from some of the campier elements of the original while reshaping the screenplay and abandoning the planned Price cameo.
The remake therefore represented a significant creative departure from the film that first connected Price to the story.
More Movie Chart Coverage
For readers looking beyond classic horror and into current movie viewing trends, another recent chart story examines a major sequel’s performance on Netflix.
Our Gladiator II Netflix chart coverage tracks the film’s position on the streaming chart.
Conclusion: The Fly pushed horror further than Vincent Price expected
Vincent Price’s reaction to David Cronenberg’s The Fly remains fascinating because it captures two different perspectives on the evolution of horror cinema.
Price recognised the quality and excitement of the 1986 remake, but its violence ultimately put him off. Cronenberg, meanwhile, had deliberately transformed the original science-fiction premise into a disturbing story about physical deterioration, scientific ambition and the loss of humanity.
The remake went on to win an Academy Award for Makeup, earn lasting critical recognition and establish itself as one of Cronenberg’s most recognised films.
Ultimately, Price’s comments do not diminish that achievement. Instead, they reveal just how far the 1986 film had moved from the 1958 original he helped bring to the screen.
Source and Research Disclaimer
This article has been prepared based on research of the sources provided below, including archival interviews, official film records, Academy Awards information and established film publications. Historical details, production information, figures and quotations are presented according to the information available in those sources. The article should be understood as reflecting the material contained in the cited records and does not imply independent verification beyond those sources.
Sources
- Golden Globes: Vincent Price Oral History
- AFI Catalog: The Fly (1986)
- 20th Century Studios: The Fly
- Academy Awards: 1987 Ceremony
- Museum of Modern Art: The Fly (1986)
- BFI: The Fly Programme Notes
- Los Angeles Times: The Fly Review
- Siskel Film Center: The Fly 40th Anniversary Screening
Featured Image Credit: Allied Artists / Public Domain / Wikimedia Commons
Leave a Reply