Universal Studios Classic Monsters Extended Universe - wuh?

[Greg Cox]

But we never saw Lugosi's Dracula and Karloff's monster face Lon's Wolf man. That was what I wanted..

I confess that, with all due respect to John Carradine, I was always disappointed that the HOUSE monster-mash movies didn't feature the "real" Dracula, i.e. Lugosi.

It's amusing, though, how the actors tended to trade parts back in those days, with Karloff, Lugosi, and Lon all playing the Frankenstein monster at various points, and Chaney Jr. literally playing every monster except the Invisible Man at one time or another.

Can you imagine how modern-day moviegoers' heads would explode if, say, Robert Downey Jr. played Iron Man in one movie and Doctor Strange in another, and then Mark Ruffalo took over as Doctor Strange when they did Iron Man Vs. Doctor Strange, while Chris Evans took time out from playing Captain America to replace Ruffalo as Bruce Banner?

Which is pretty much how the casting in the old Universal flicks worked.

 

[Skywalker]

Can you imagine how modern-day moviegoers' heads would explode if, say, Robert Downey Jr. played Iron Man in one movie and Doctor Strange in another, and then Mark Ruffalo took over as Doctor Strange when they did Iron Man Vs. Doctor Strange, while Chris Evans took time out from playing Captain America to replace Ruffalo as Bruce Banner?

 

[eyeresist]

I admit I'm having a little trouble visualizing The Rock as the Wolfman, though. Kinda the point is that he's just an ordinary dude until the full moon rises, but The Rock is already larger-than-life. I can see him as Doc Savage, but Larry Talbot?

Fair point. I imagine they would explain it by making him a soldier who is cursed while on a tour of combat. Imagine if Arnie had been bitten by the Predator and turned into one himself. That set-up means the Wolfman can be a govt-controlled super soldier sent on dangerous commando missions. Plenty of stories in that, with Talbot-style self loathing for spice.

If they were sacrosanct, Universal wouldn't have been able to transform them from their literary origins into very different movie characters in the first place.

I'm aware of the historical nature of the characters of course, but many people only know the pop culture images. Good Lord, I remember some Twi-hard claiming that Del Toro was ripping off Twilight by making The Wolfman.

Universal doesn't have a blockbuster franchise? What about Fast and Furious? Or Jurassic Park? Or Despicable Me?

I thought the claim was a bit iffy, but I was just repeating what I'd read.

 

[Tosk]

Good Lord, I remember some Twi-hard claiming that Del Toro was ripping off Twilight by making The Wolfman.

He only starred in it though, hardly his decision to get it made.

 

[eyeresist]

Like most people, I forgot who starred in it and who directed it. I think the Twilight fan in question was accusing "they" rather than anyone specific.

 

[Christopher]

I'm aware of the historical nature of the characters of course, but many people only know the pop culture images. Good Lord, I remember some Twi-hard claiming that Del Toro was ripping off Twilight by making The Wolfman.

If you avoid doing things for fear that the ignorant will misunderstand them, then you'll never do anything.

 

[eyeresist]

^ Earth, Hitler, 1938.


Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[JD]

I thought it was a decent movie. I put it in the category of "Goofy movie a lot of people hated, but I thought was entertaining", along with movies like Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters and The Brothers Grimm.

I have seen The Brothers Grimm, but I don't remember it. I did really like L&G though.

I confess that, with all due respect to John Carradine, I was always disappointed that the HOUSE monster-mash movies didn't feature the "real" Dracula, i.e. Lugosi.

It's amusing, though, how the actors tended to trade parts back in those days, with Karloff, Lugosi, and Lon all playing the Frankenstein monster at various points, and Chaney Jr. literally playing every monster except the Invisible Man at one time or another.

Can you imagine how modern-day moviegoers' heads would explode if, say, Robert Downey Jr. played Iron Man in one movie and Doctor Strange in another, and then Mark Ruffalo took over as Doctor Strange when they did Iron Man Vs. Doctor Strange, while Chris Evans took time out from playing Captain America to replace Ruffalo as Bruce Banner?

Which is pretty much how the casting in the old Universal flicks worked.

EDIT: We've got our first look at Sofia Boutella as The Mummy thanks to some pictures from the filming in London.

 

[Aragorn]

First full trailer for The Mummy:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Tosk]

Looks...kind of like I was expecting. Very likely pass for me.

 

[Greg Cox]

Looks spookier and less slapstick than the 1999 version. It almost looks like a big-budget version of Hammer's BLOOD FROM THE MUMMY'S TOMB, complete with all-powerful Mummy witch-queen.

Consider me intrigued. We haven't had a scary Mummy movie in ages.

 

[kirk55555]

That trailer was...ok. I wish they were going for a more atmospheric style of ilm, not necessarily outright horror but more like that then a Marvel movie (and I LOVE Marvel movies and always will, but The Mummy and stuff like that is different), which is the vibe the trailer gives me. Still, I'll keep an open mind. I like the Universal monsters, and I want this to succeed. heck, I liked the first two Brendan fraiser movies, and this looks better then them, so I'm interested in seeing how the movie turns out.

 

[Christopher]

Okay, it's a Tom Cruise action movie, but the action looks pretty clever, at least. I gather there's more scary stuff too, but they're still working on the FX for that so they couldn't put much in this trailer.

I'm encouraged by something Kurtzman said in an interview I read -- that the key to a good monster movie is getting the audience to both fear the monster and fear for the monster. I.e. make them both scary and sympathetic. I think he gets it.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm encouraged by something Kurtzman said in an interview I read -- that the key to a good monster movie is getting the audience to both fear the monster and fear for the monster. I.e. make them both scary and sympathetic. I think he gets it.

This is true. With the possible exception of Dracula, there was always an element of pathos to their monsters: the misunderstand Monster, the cursed Wolfman, the Invisible Man succumbing to delusions of grandeur, even the loneliness of the Creature from the Black Lagoon, who was mostly dangerous when humans wouldn't leave him alone.

As for the Mummy, I often thought the scariest part of those movies was not being chased by the Mummy, but the endless, eternal anguish of being the Mummy, buried alive and doomed to guard a tomb for all eternity . . . sometimes with your tongue cut out.

 

[sojourner]

Like there were alot of people to talk to in that situation.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I confess that, with all due respect to John Carradine, I was always disappointed that the HOUSE monster-mash movies didn't feature the "real" Dracula, i.e. Lugosi.

It's amusing, though, how the actors tended to trade parts back in those days, with Karloff, Lugosi, and Lon all playing the Frankenstein monster at various points, and Chaney Jr. literally playing every monster except the Invisible Man at one time or another.

Not really trade--for some actors/characters. Once Karloff was finished with the Monster in Son of Frankenstein, he never returned to the role; his Imhotep from The Mummy (1932) was a one-and-done for the actor and that character (Kharis was the mummy in the sequels). The Claude Rains Invisible Man was another one-and-done for actor & character. Chaney jr is the only actor to portray the Wolf Man.

The Monster and Kharis Mummy were such faceless creatures, that it no longer mattered who was in the role, and unlike big names like Downey jr in your example, by the time Lugosi took on the neck bolts, he was less than a B player (and thoroughly disrespected under the new Universal regime at the time), while Glenn Strange was just some western heavy.

 

[Gaith]

So if we consider the Jack Reacher franchise still (potentially) active, this makes an attempted third simultaneous movie franchise on Cruise's part? Is there precedent for this?

 

[Nerys Myk]

So if we consider the Jack Reacher franchise still (potentially) active, this makes an attempted third simultaneous movie franchise on Cruise's part? Is there precedent for this?

Might be. Pratt's doing Jurassic World and Guardians. Ford did Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Stewart did X-men and Star Trek. Can't think of a threefer.

 

[Tosk]

Sly in Rocky, Rambo, and Expendables?
Hugo Weaving in Transformers, Hobbit, and MCU? (Does he have to be in more than one to count?)
Liam Neeson in Narnia, Taken, and Clash of the Titans?
How about Antonio Banderas in Shrek, Zorro, Spy Kids, and whatever you call the El Mariachi franchise?

 

[Aragorn]

Vin Diesel -- The Fast and the Furious, Riddick, XXX, Guardians of the Galaxy. Also, The Last Witch Hunter was a failed attempt at another franchise.

Dwayne Johnson -- How many sequels has this guy been in? And San Andreas 2 will be the first time he was actually in the original movie too.

Also, we don't know yet if Tom Cruise will even be in any future movies. Russell Crowe looks like he's the connective character.