• 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?

Last edited:
Penny Dreadful also did pretty well mixing in elements of Dracula,
The Wolfman
, Frankenstein, Dorian Gray, and later Jekyll and Hyde.
 
It's "too soon" for a "reboot"... Even though this doesn't SEEM to have much to do with the Mummy series from over a decade ago, the commercials sure make it seem that way, where it seems to replay scenes we already saw in the first two Brendan Fraser Mummy movies .

The last Mummy anyone remembers/cares about came out in 2001. That's 16 years ago. For current Hollywood standards that's a lot of time for a reboot. Spider-Man had 2 reboots in the last 10 years! Granted he's a lot more popular than the Universal Monsters which brings us to…

There isn't a built in fanbase waiting for this to happen. With the DC Film Universe, fans of DC comics (and recent TV shows) are watching the success of Marvel movies, and would LIKE to see the same for their favorites. Or with Harry Potter or some of the Young Adult movies-from-novels... people WANTED to see those in live action.

Agreed. That's why it was important to get it right on the first film of the reboot. Universal won't have the chance of a super successful fourth film like WB/DC just had. That's why an experienced director for The Mummy was super important.
 
The last Mummy anyone remembers/cares about came out in 2001. That's 16 years ago. For current Hollywood standards that's a lot of time for a reboot. Spider-Man had 2 reboots in the last 10 years! Granted he's a lot more popular than the Universal Monsters which brings us to…
Well, those Mummy movies are constantly on TV, so they don't feel all that distant. ANd like I said, two of the things we see in the commercials are the giant sand head, which is just like those 1999-2001 movies, and then the fighting Egyptian woman (who doesn't look straight European) turned into a Mummy (like in movie #2).

I forgot to mention, and will edit now, is that the Andrew Garfield Spider-Man just FELT like a cash grab (which it was -- SOny "needed" to reboot so they could keep the movie rights). ANd I think that cash grab feeling lingers with this movie as well.

Agreed. That's why it was important to get it right on the first film of the reboot. Universal won't have the chance of a super successful fourth film like WB/DC just had. That's why an experienced director for The Mummy was super important.
 
It would, but there is no room anymore when a sequel, reboot or a franchise movie isn't playing a couple of weeks out in either direction...



Transformers.
Wow... didn't realize that. Yeah...I guess so. Would Tom Cruise have found it insulting to have opened in October ... hyping up the Halloween connection (i.e. monsters & scary stuff)?
 
And Cars 3 is in between Mummy and Transformers followed by Despicable Me 3 and Spider-Man in the weeks after. I made a list last month to prepare for the summer movies and there's basically something big every week.

I'd say the problem with October is this looks less horror and monsters and more big budget summer blockbuster popcorn movie thrill ride at least judging from the marketing.
 
So did no one start a Mummy(2017) thread?
It was MEH, lots of promise here for the Dark Universe but this 'start' was a mixed bag.
I understand Dracula Untold is to be retconned into this so it's not technically the first DU film but that film had mixed reaction IIRC. I've not see it.
 
I didn't think it was as bad as the reviews indicated, but yeah, overall, meh. Wasn't a particular fan of Dracula Untold either, but it passed the time.
 
It is? I thought they abandoned the idea of Dracula Untold as part of DU.

Yes, they did. Dracula Untold was made as a standalone, but the idea of the shared monster universe was conceived late in its production, so a modern-day epilogue was hastily shot and tacked on to provide an opening for the developers of the shared universe to tie into it if they wanted to. But as Kurtzman and the others developed what they wanted that shared universe to be, they decided they didn't want to be locked down by a tacked-on connection to someone else's version of Dracula, preferring to come up with their own approach to that character. So that slapdash plan, which was never really more than an afterthought to begin with, was wisely abandoned.
 
I may be oversimplifying this a bit, but it seems to me they're making a fundamental error in trying to take creepy horror stories and pulpy sci-fi and turn it into generic "epic" special effects laden, action oriented spectacle movies. They might do better if they played more towards the source material's strengths.

Even Marvel have figured out that they can mix genres to great success, even within their own shared universe.
 
Last edited:
I may be oversimplifying this a bit, but it seems to me they're making a fundamental error in trying to take creepy horror stories and pulpy sci-fi and turn it into generic "epic" special effects laden, action oriented spectacle movies. They might do better if they played more towards the source material's strengths.

Well, they've said in interviews that the movies will have different tones, and some may even be low-budget. I guess they felt they needed to go big with The Mummy because audiences would expect something like the Fraser movies. But Bride of Frankenstein is from the same guy who directed Gods and Monsters, the biopic about the director of the original Bride, so that could well have a completely different tone. Let's hope so.
 
I may be oversimplifying this a bit, but it seems to me they're making a fundamental error in trying to take creepy horror stories and pulpy sci-fi and turn it into generic "epic" special effects laden, action oriented spectacle movies. They might do better if they played more towards the source material's strengths.

Even Marvel have figured out that they can mix genres to great success, even within their own shared universe.

I think you're right.. And I think that is why the Brendan Frasier Mummy movies worked so well.. Sure, they had lots of (sometimes sketchy) CGI, but they were fun, action adventure popcorn flicks. They didn't take themselves too seriously but still had a good story. Making these monster movies too epic and serious is the wrong path to take, I think.. I mean.. When has a traditional monster movie REALLY worked in recent years? Dracula Untold was meh.. Del Toro's Wolfman was a snoozer.. I Frankenstein had the right idea but just wasn't very good... Van Helsing could have been good, but it too, just wasn't well executed. Gary Oldman's Dracula is the last one that I remember that really was effective.. It was the right amount of creepy/campy/serious... I hate Keanu in the lead role, but the other players worked really well, I thought..

Just MHO, of course...
 
Well, they've said in interviews that the movies will have different tones, and some may even be low-budget. I guess they felt they needed to go big with The Mummy because audiences would expect something like the Fraser movies. But Bride of Frankenstein is from the same guy who directed Gods and Monsters, the biopic about the director of the original Bride, so that could well have a completely different tone. Let's hope so.

Going big straight out of the gate is usually a guaranteed way to find yourself faceplanting.
Going back to Marvel as an example of this sort of thing done right, they started out fairly small with Iron Man. Yes, it was a bombastic action movie with several set pieces and a slightly weaker third act, but at the same time it had a contained plot, a tight focus on character and it knew what it was about. Only in the post credit do they even *hint* at a wider context and it wasn't until four or five movies later with Avengers that they really drew back the curtains and let loose with the epic craziness.
It's good to want to start strong, but that strength should be in storytelling, characterisation and a little bit of world building. You don't want to blow your wad early, else you're not leaving yourself anywhere to go later except more of Tom Cruise running away from CG clouds.

I think you're right.. And I think that is why the Brendan Frasier Mummy movies worked so well.. Sure, they had lots of (sometimes sketchy) CGI, but they were fun, action adventure popcorn flicks. They didn't take themselves too seriously but still had a good story. Making these monster movies too epic and serious is the wrong path to take, I think.. I mean.. When has a traditional monster movie REALLY worked in recent years? Dracula Untold was meh.. Del Toro's Wolfman was a snoozer.. I Frankenstein had the right idea but just wasn't very good... Van Helsing could have been good, but it too, just wasn't well executed. Gary Oldman's Dracula is the last one that I remember that really was effective.. It was the right amount of creepy/campy/serious... I hate Keanu in the lead role, but the other players worked really well, I thought..

Just MHO, of course...

Yeah, when I think great modern monster movies in the old traditional sense, I think of Alien, The Thing and The Fly. There are more recent examples like say Splice, Troll Hunter and The Mist but they didn't reach anywhere near the notoriety of the older examples.
For "successful" modern monster movies you're going to have to go to more action oriented fair like the Underworld movies, 28 Days/Weeks/Mounths Later (see also everything zombie related over that last decade or two from the DotD remake to TWD) and I suppose Pacific Rim and Cloverfield?

Anyway, to my way of thinking the smart way to approach this is to make a movie true to the roots of the source material first and allow room to organically weave in connections to the other properties, but don't overemphasise it. Just make sure there's a common thread that they can all relate to.

In this case I think their version of the infinity stones should be something to do with immortality. The fountain of youth, the philosophers stone, the holy grail, something like that. I mean think about it, a blighted form of immortality, undeath or death deferred is something that connects most of these creatures, no? Vampires, werewolves and cursed mummies could be seen as a supernatural manifestation, while Frankenstien's monster & The Bride, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde and The Invisible Man are science's attempts to achieve the same effect with equally blighted results.
Like perhaps this powerful thing, whatever it might be can change the nature of living things and fragments of it have been found all over the world throughout history?

No clue where the Creature from the Lagoon would fit into that. Perhaps the "Macguffin of Youth" originated in Atlantis and the creature is a relic/product of that same technology and that's you're tie-in to the larger mythic elements? Or maybe just use the name Atlantis, but really do something closer to 'At the Mountains of Madness', putting a Lovecraftian cosmic horror twist of the more familiar mythical story elements.
Like say the Titans were pretty much the Elder Gods and the pagan deities and pantheons were their spawn and half-breed offspring. That would open up a whole lot of storytelling possibilities, no?
 
Last edited:
In this case I think their version of the infinity stones should be something to do with immortality.
I get why the MCU movies link up - so the Avengers can fight aliens, and eventually a space god. It's a simple and standard, but coherent and credible outside threat. Also, the characters are heroes, so it makes sense to have them team up eventually.

That said, while I'm open to the Dark Universe franchise idea generally, I'm not seeing the inherent appeal of crossover stories. I love Sherlock Holmes and Zorro as characters, and can accept the idea of them sharing a fictional universe, but to what end? Suppose Tarzan and Professor Challenger shared a reality. One could even have them meet fairly plausibly, if Challenger were to go on a research trip to Tarzan's neck of the jungle. Fine. So what? Are Dracula, a Wolf Man, and the Bride of Frankenstein's Monster going to team up to fight aliens? Pass.

I also suspect Universal missed a big opportunity by not focusing on an early-20th century (or even earlier) time frame. We already have two modern cinematic universes in the MCU and DCEU, not to mention franchises like Fast & Furious, so adding yet another one brings little new to the table. But a (say) 1895 cinematic universe? Now that would attract my attention. (And, yes, I like LXG too. Not sorry. :p)

Del Toro's Wolfman was a snoozer..
Hey, I like that one! Give it credit for being a properly violent, R-rated horror in an era where Hollywood is PG-13-ing f***ing Terminator and Expendables movies. Plus points for the period setting. Quoth Ebert:

"The Wolfman" avoids what must have been the temptation to update its famous story. It plants itself securely in period, with a great-looking production set in 1891. Gothic horror stories seem more digestible when set in once-great British country houses and peopled with gloomy introverts, especially when the countryside involves foggy moors and a craggy waterfall. This is, after all, a story set before the advent of modern psychology, back when a man's fate could be sealed by ancestral depravity.​

And again, on Mary Reilly, a Jekyll and Hyde story:

So what is it, this fascination with the Gothic? For me, it offers the fascination of secrets, dreads and guilts. Modern horror is too easily explained; indeed, the real world has outrun horror, and the headlines are now worse than anything Stephen King can imagine. In the 19th century, there was belief in evil, because there was belief in good. That makes stories like this sort of optimistic, in a way.​

Eh, but what did that old geezer know? Obviously Dr. Jekyll should be a modern-day Nick Fury. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
That said, while I'm open to the Dark Universe franchise idea generally, I'm not seeing the inherent appeal of crossover stories.
In a word: profit.
Less flippant answer: I agree there's not a lot of need for it, I'm just speculating on how one might pull it off in a more creative and interesting way than we've seen thus far, proceeding from the basic premise that it's a thing that's going to happen one way or another, so why not make the most of it? ;)
I also suspect Universal missed a big opportunity by not focusing on an early-20th century (or even earlier) time frame. We already have two modern cinematic universes in the MCU and DCEU, not to mention franchises like Fast & Furious, so adding yet another one brings little new to the table. But a (say) 1895 cinematic universe? Now that would attract my attention. (And, yes, I like LXG too. Not sorry. :p)
I was actually thinking while writing the previous post that the whole thing would be so much more interesting if it was all set in the 1920's or thereabouts. It'd make the Lovecraft connection so much more appealing and easy to integrate and allow for a broader latitude in how these things are presented.
For one thing, it would allow 'The Mummy' to be the franchise's "present day" with the events of Dracula, Frankenstein, Jekyll and Hyde & maybe even The Invisible Man having taken place several decades previous, so the origin stories can be circumvented (because who needs to retread most of those again?) So when the events post Mummy happen, all those monsters are already out there.
 
That said, while I'm open to the Dark Universe franchise idea generally, I'm not seeing the inherent appeal of crossover stories. I love Sherlock Holmes and Zorro as characters, and can accept the idea of them sharing a fictional universe, but to what end? Suppose Tarzan and Professor Challenger shared a reality. One could even have them meet fairly plausibly, if Challenger were to go on a research trip to Tarzan's neck of the jungle. Fine. So what? Are Dracula, a Wolf Man, and the Bride of Frankenstein's Monster going to team up to fight aliens? Pass.

Well, the impetus of the original Universal Monsters crossover, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, was to have the monsters fight each other. Although in House of Frankenstein, it was more about having the respective monsters fight Boris Karloff's Dr. Neimann. (That's right, Karloff played the mad scientist rather than the monster.)
 
Well, they've said in interviews that the movies will have different tones, and some may even be low-budget. I guess they felt they needed to go big with The Mummy because audiences would expect something like the Fraser movies. But Bride of Frankenstein is from the same guy who directed Gods and Monsters, the biopic about the director of the original Bride, so that could well have a completely different tone. Let's hope so.
He also directed the last two Twilight movies and Disney's Beauty and the Beast, so also has some experience with larger scale CGI heavy movies too.
 
There was a piece on BBC News (I think) that discussed the idea that The Mummy was specifically made and marketed to countries outside of the US where there is a bigger demand. It referenced China and India IIRC. The thesis was that falling stars like Tom Cruise are still big draws overseas, and that is the marketing for The Mummy.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top