To be fair, the studio is called "Universal".
Universal Studios Classic Monsters Extended Universe - wuh?
- Thread starter eyeresist
- Start date
^ Because it's been comatose for decades, connotes (whether fairly or not) old-timey silliness like "The Monster Mash" and Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, which is not the kind of baggage a new franchise wants or needs.
I can't argue that "Dark Universe" isn't a pretty generic franchise title. And yet, to be honest, I kinda dig it.
I can't argue that "Dark Universe" isn't a pretty generic franchise title. And yet, to be honest, I kinda dig it.
I don't know. The Mummy trailers don't look terrible. And they're certainly doing well in the casting department. I suspect it's in large part a question of whether the timing is right or not. Are people interested in more monster movies right now or is it a subject that just doesn't draw people very much?
Huh? People have been referring to extended fictional franchises as "universes" since long before 2008. There was the Star Wars Expanded Universe, for example. Godzilla fandom has long referred to that franchise's alternate continuities in that way, e.g. Showa Universe(1954-74) and Heisei Universe (1984-95). Then there's the Wold Newton Universe, based on Philip Jose Farmer's pastiche fiction establishing many great literary and pulp heroes (e.g. Sherlock Holmes, Doc Savage, Tarzan, Sam Spade, and James Bond) as members of the same extended family.
And of course the DC and Marvel Universes were called that in comics for decades before the movie adaptations started to use the term.
You're being too literal.
Franchises in the past used to be sort of improv as you go. Trek is a great example where each Trek film was treated as if it could be the last (Godzilla movies were much more slapdash than that, which is why they got so silly in the end). The MCU represents the next evolution of franchises where movies are all carefully mapped out years in advance like puzzle-pieces meant to interlock. When people hear the suffix "Cinematic Universe" they think of this new approach. And that's the bandwagon Universal is trying to jump on.
Well, yeah, but they're not remotely near the first or only studio to do that. Every studio is developing cinematic universes these days, so to single out Universal for that is rather arbitrary.
Especially since Universal invented the shared cinematic universe with Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man in 1943. They were doing it 65 years before Marvel.
My biggest complaint about the Dark Universe name is that it doesn't really tell you that this is a monster movie universe. The other names usually give you at least some kind of clue what the universe focuses on, the MCU and DCEU tell you they are based on those comics, the Monsterverse tells you it's about some kind of monsters, but Dark Universe could be anything. At least with the DC movie, it would make more sense since that deals with dark magic.^ Because it's been comatose for decades, connotes (whether fairly or not) old-timey silliness like "The Monster Mash" and Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, which is not the kind of baggage a new franchise wants or needs.
I can't argue that "Dark Universe" isn't a pretty generic franchise title. And yet, to be honest, I kinda dig it.
On the one hand, I tend to agree that it's rather generic. On the other hand, I can see what they're going for, in a way. This isn't supposed to be just a monster universe, but a horror universe. From what I hear, they are trying to get back to the scary/eerie roots of the franchise, rather than being strictly action/humor like the previous Mummy reboot. (Although the trailers for The Mummy do give the impression that it's similarly action-heavy.) So calling it "Dark Universe" does convey the tone they're aiming for. And the tagline "Welcome to a new world of gods and monsters" (a rather nice callback to Dr. Pretorius's toast from The Bride of Frankenstein, which was the same without the "Welcome") does help get across the idea that, well, there are monsters in it. As will the individual movie titles, of course.
Last edited:
And back then it was Universal Monsters or Universal Horror.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Monsters
I can't see why Universal doesn't use the same now, to remind people of their glorious past but have to go with something bland and generic such as "Dark Universe".
Because this franchise, like any massive, $100m/movie franchise, isn't being made for the tiny number of geeks who actually remember movies and product from generations ago; it's being made for teens with disposable income, Chinese audiences who may never have heard of the key characters in the first place, NASCAR-loving Trumpies, and random urban audiences worldwide - and none of those groups care about 1936's Dracula's Daughter, 1939's Son of Frankenstein, 1943's Captive Wild Woman, or any of the other old-ass stuff on that page you linked.
Remember, after the Sommers Mummy series died out (wholly unnecessarily, IMO) Universal made period piece monster flicks in 2010's The Wolfman and 2014's Dracula Untold, of which the former of bombed and the latter was a mild, unloved success. So now they're hiring Tom Cruise and playing on Mummy name recognition from a decade, because third time's the charm? In other words, as a constable or other reasonable figure from one of those old movies might advise: "Get a grip, sir!"
Here's my idea, the logo is already a play on Universal so just take it a little further. I wonder if there could be any rights problems going this way since Universal is a known entity and it's not that far off.
I guess it doesn't have that XXXXX Universe moniker but they can call it the Universal Dark Universe (would anyone really care?) or we can just say it will be the next Universal Dark movie Frankenstein Returns or whatever.
I guess it doesn't have that XXXXX Universe moniker but they can call it the Universal Dark Universe (would anyone really care?) or we can just say it will be the next Universal Dark movie Frankenstein Returns or whatever.
So the bland and generic "Dark Universe" moniker will make all those you've listed flock to the movie theaters. Riiight. Just like they did for Dracula Untold, which was going to be the first movie of Universal's rebooted Monsters universe, until it flopped.
^ The title of the franchise actually doesn't much matter, because if the masses go to see The Mummy ('17), it'll be for Tom Cruise and the action, not because they'll be voting with their wallets for a new Universal Monsters franchise. But just because the title ultimately doesn't much matter doesn't mean they haven't put significant thought and market-testing into it.
That's better since it at least gives some indication that these are the Universal Monsters.Here's my idea, the logo is already a play on Universal so just take it a little further. I wonder if there could be any rights problems going this way since Universal is a known entity and it's not that far off.
I guess it doesn't have that XXXXX Universe moniker but they can call it the Universal Dark Universe (would anyone really care?) or we can just say it will be the next Universal Dark movie Frankenstein Returns or whatever.
EDIT:
We've got a brief clip of Dr. Jekyll introducing Nick to Prodigium.