RETURN TO PARADISE

WATCH: New Blue Lagoon Comes To Lifetime With Fresh Nubile Bodies

At a screening of Prometheus on Saturday, we caught the extended trailer for Lifetime’s reboot of the Chris Atkins/Brooke Shields classic, Blue Lagoon. Premiering Saturday, June 16, Blue Lagoon: The Awakening is a more softcore update of the lovers-in-paradise flick, with Brenton Thwaites and Indiana Jones as the genetically blessed teens whose hormones start racing on a deserted island. Tabloid fixture Denise Richards co-stars as Jones’ mom, desperately looking for her daughter. (Well, it is Lifetime—they’re required to have a desperate mom in every movie.)

Check Thwaites, 23, out in the trailer above, and scope him out in some sweet screen shots below. If you like what you seen, you’ll be happy to know the Australian actor is slated to play the young prince in the upcoming live-action adaptation of the Sleeping Beauty story, Maleficent.  

 

Source: Square Hippies

 

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #entertainment #bluelagoon:theawakening #brentonthwaites stories and more

35 Comments

  • dee-dee

    Her name is Indiana Jones?

  • chris

    Stop it with the remakes. They are NEVER as good as the original.

  • Snownova

    @chris:

    Well with science fiction and fantasy movies remakes can take advantage of advances in special effects, robotics and CGI technology (I’m talking remakes, not the star wars abominations), but I agree that for a movie like the blue lagoon a remake can’t really add anything.

  • Daez

    Where remakes shine is that they bring the story to a new generation. Many in the new generation never look twice at the older film, but will watch a remake of the film.

  • Chris

    Her name is Indiana EVANS.

  • Danny

    How can anything top Christopher Atkins in a soggy diaper?

  • Aven

    @Danny: Brenton Thwaites in a soggy diaper :)

  • doug105

    @Aven: Not on his best day.

  • randy

    I’d love to be stuck on an island with this guy!

  • Mr. Enemabag Jones

    The original was crap, we didn’t need a remake.

  • Christopher

    Great face/hair, but body is nowhere near as hot as Christopher Atkins. Atkins had a tight, ripped set of abs, and narrow waist. Still, this guy is admittedly very nice to look at.

  • DANN

    THIS LOOKS SO HORRIBLE

    NOT THAT THE ORIGINAL WAS ANY BETTER

  • SebX

    Yeah, guy is hot, but NOWHERE near Atkins, IMO. No only was he hot, he was truly BEAUTIFUL.

  • The Real Mike in Asheville

    @chris: In this case, that is not possible — not possible because the remake could not possibly be worse than the original. Equally bad, probably, but worse, I don’t that is possible.

  • ncstud

    There is no place for this story to go but up. The original is dumb and Atkins is like what–85 today? Get over it, cuz this new babe is hot. Total masculine face, great hair, hot body and Im in luv with his tiny nipples! I luv a stud with small headlites like his.

  • Bailey

    photo #2: Got his red wings!

  • DavidW

    Danny said>>

    How can anything top Christopher Atkins in a soggy diaper?

    No diaper at all…

  • Jakey

    Did the world really need a fourth ‘Blue Lagoon’ movie? (Well, no.)

  • Aeiou

    What I like is how no matter how long they will be on the island, his hair will never grow nor get greasy and matted.

  • The Real Mike in Asheville

    @ncstud: FUCK YOU stud — Atkins was 19 when he made Blue Lagoon. And some day, stud, if you’re lucky, you too will reach 51 and look as handsome as Atkins does at that age.

  • DavidW

    @ncstud – it must be that new math your playin with- As of 2012 Atkins is 51 years old.

    And @The Real Mike in Asheville your promising too much to the little ncstud.

  • Mike1987

    Twinks are a dime a dozen.

  • D P

    What I want to know is which one’s the vampire?

  • KyleW

    Personally I loved the original, but not for the stunning story-telling. The script was bloated, and it could have done away with the first half hour. It was super soft core in the first place, so if they’ve softened it more, it will lose the one element that made it watchable. But I suppose they could could tighten the script a million notches and turn it into a rollicking adventure. But I imagine they’ll turn it into a tedious love-story.

  • KyleW

    Couldn’t get the trailer in my country – just found a viewable one. It looks utterly shit. Just a stupid teen romance movie. By starting with the characters as bratty teens, you lose that whole innocence thing that made the original work. Now it’s just a dumb castaway romance. Bullshit bullshit.

  • kevininbuffalo

    Looks like the Blue Lagoon meets Gilligan’s Island. “Just sit right back and you’ll hear a tale a tale of a fateful trip…” This kid is nothing, you’ll see dozens just like him in any mall on the weekend. Chris Atkins was special, just gorgeous, couldn’t act worth shit but hell
    who cared!

  • Dirty Ole Man

    Actually, the Atkins/Shields 1980 version was the first remake of Blue Lagoon’s original in 1949. Atkin’s version was proof positive that remakes can be better than the first.

  • D P

    @chris: – I agree with @Dirty Ole Man: ; and as well, there’s the Star Trek franchise. The second movie was definitely better than the first, not to mention that the of The Wrath of Khan storyline built upon one of the original episode’s storyline.

  • D P

    [Queerty’s comment utility thinks that I’ve already submitted this, but it’s not there. Thus, this line.] @chris: – I agree with @Dirty Ole Man: ; and as well, there’s the Star Trek franchise. The second movie was definitely better than the first, not to mention that the of The Wrath of Khan storyline built upon one of the original episode’s storyline.

  • D P

    @D P: — great! now it shows up……

  • somebody

    Hi! Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that he has a big bulge

  • JoJo

    I enjoyed the original film …which was a silent film made in the 1920s! The one made in the 80s was NOT the original version. I’m so tired of seeing that. There were several versions before the 80s one. Oh, also …ORIGINALLY …there was this thing. You kids probably don’t remember them but it was called …A BOOK (which had several sequels in the series)! So, it’s had many versions since THE BOOK came out. All of them were different in some way. Films, plays, books, folk tales, fairy tales, campfire stories …as long as there have been talking humans there was ever changing stories being told over and over and over. Get past the whole “remake” thing.

  • Catherine

    Watching it, and not getting it! What’s the point of this remake? It defeats the purpose of what the original movie was about.

  • DavidW

    The remake was like watching the sinking of the titanic, with no ship. I thought the story was supposed to be about the kids dealing with growing up. I found the parents crises a big distraction.

  • KyleW

    @DavidW: I’ve not seen it yet, but like you say, the whole point about the movie was the “discovering themselves” bit. Otherwise it’s just another tedious teen movie.

Comments are closed.