• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Universal Studios Classic Monsters Extended Universe - wuh?

People are already ragging on the upcoming remake of THE FLY for trampling over the sacred memory of the 1980 movie with Jeff Goldblum. "Hollywood has run of out of ideas! Why can't they do something original?"

Never mind that the 1980 movie was a remake of the classic 1954 movie with Vincent Price . . ...

Big difference here is I thought this was a rare instance where the remake far surpassed the original (and I enjoyed the original). Usually remakes don't have an upwards trajectory regarding quality, a third being even better than the great 2nd, in my eyes, is impossible.

Maybe it's closed-minded but I just loved the remake.
 
Big difference here is I thought this was a rare instance where the remake far surpassed the original (and I enjoyed the original). Usually remakes don't have an upwards trajectory regarding quality, a third being even better than the great 2nd, in my eyes, is impossible.

Maybe it's closed-minded but I just loved the remake.

The 1980 remake is great, no question. My point was mostly that the Cronenberg version wouldn't exist if we'd applied the same arguments back then:

"Another remake! Why can't Cronenberg do something original instead of ripping off a classic movie?" Etc, etc.

And even if the third is NOT as good as the first two versions, where's the harm in having another run at it? Contrary to popular opinion, an inferior remake doesn't "ruin" the previous versions. They're just as good as they ever were.

The way I see it, remakes are a no-lose proposition. If the new MUMMY sucks, we still have the old ones to enjoy. And if the new one succeeds, we have another good MUMMY movie.

Either way, we don't lose anything . . . except, at worst, two hours of our time.
 
I'm hoping for the best with these. I like the idea of reviving the Universal Monsters as a "cinematic universe," because it was probably the first shared-universe SF/fantasy franchise in American cinema.
 
Big difference here is I thought this was a rare instance where the remake far surpassed the original (and I enjoyed the original). Usually remakes don't have an upwards trajectory regarding quality, a third being even better than the great 2nd, in my eyes, is impossible.

Maybe it's closed-minded but I just loved the remake.

The remake was really its own entity distinct from the original in this case. Heck it was a Cronenberg film!
 
Syfy has released a #MummyMonday featurette on Dr. Jekyll/Mr.Hyde and Prodigium. It gives our best look yet at Prodigium and also includes our first brief glimpse of Jekyll's transformation and Hyde.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
30mbqf7.jpg
 
I liked "Universal Monsters Universe" better as a blanket title than the rather generic-sounding "Dark Universe." But maybe they wanted to differentiate themselves from Legendary's Godzilla/King Kong-based "MonsterVerse." Which really should've been called "KaijuVerse," if you ask me. (Kaijuniverse?)
 
So is Dark Universe the name? I thought that was just a generic description for the trailer.
EDIT: Never mind, just went to EiG's link.
 
I liked "Universal Monsters Universe" better as a blanket title than the rather generic-sounding "Dark Universe." But maybe they wanted to differentiate themselves from Legendary's Godzilla/King Kong-based "MonsterVerse." Which really should've been called "KaijuVerse," if you ask me. (Kaijuniverse?)
Maybe they didn't want Universe Universe but I agree it's too generic. I think even a small tweak to something like Universal Dark would work a little better and make it more uniquely googleable (yeah I made that up but it's fun to say).
 
If Legendary had gone with KaijuVerse, then this could be the Universal Monsterverse. I'm not really crazy about the "-verse" formation ("universe" means "turned into one," so "-verse" just means "turned," which is kind of meaningless), but it seems to be here to stay.
 
And even if the third is NOT as good as the first two versions, where's the harm in having another run at it?

After a time, enough can be enough. There were several Dracula movies after the 1931 Lugosi version, but most (with the exception of Horror of Dracula, or maybe the Jack Palance Bram Stoker's Dracula) were forgettable, either trying too hard to be different and edgy (in the era of their production), or just walking in the same, tired footprints (template) of the Lugosi film. So, in that case, no new ground has been broken.



Either way, we don't lose anything . . . except, at worst, two hours of our time.

...and suffering through Tom Cruise trying to act as someone other than Tom Cruise. Still waiting for that to happen.
 
Why are they all so desperate for such a crummy, generic name? Everyone is trying to ape Marvel's success so hard that they can't even be bothered to brand their stuff something other than "universe".
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top