^ I have no problem whatsoever with blaming Tom Cruise. 
Universal Studios Classic Monsters Extended Universe - wuh?
- Thread starter eyeresist
- Start date
Sticking Cruise in the film was the first--and biggest mistake of all. He would be better off making something he would know all about, such as When Xenu Devoured Will Smith's Wallet, instead of a Mummy film.
Moreover, there's no great public interest in seeing a full-on revival of Universal's monsters as some shared universe. Its just not there.
Moreover, there's no great public interest in seeing a full-on revival of Universal's monsters as some shared universe. Its just not there.
I would have loved to have seen a new Universal Monsters horror movie series. Unfortunately, Universal didn't seem to want to make horror films, they just wanted to kinda/sorta plug their IP into the Marvel mold.
That's two strikes for Kurtz at starting new CU. Where will he pop up next?
That's two strikes for Kurtz at starting new CU. Where will he pop up next?
That's two strikes for Kurtz at starting new CU. Where will he pop up next?
What was the first one? I know he's worked on a couple of franchises from other creators, like Transformers and Kelvin Trek, but as far as I know, Dark Universe was the first one he was in charge of.
As for where he goes next, he's already got a bunch of different TV shows that he/Secret Hideout produces, including Discovery. So he could just stick to TV.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was originally envisioned as the beginning of a shared fictional universe, which would have continued with at least two sequels and several spin-off films but Alex Kurtzman only has screenplay and story credits for that film.
He of course directed, produced and co-wrote the story for The Mummy as well as being in charge of the Universal Monsters universe.
He of course directed, produced and co-wrote the story for The Mummy as well as being in charge of the Universal Monsters universe.
I really didn't think this one was going to work to start with. But de-canonising the one film they already had in 2014 and deciding to start over was a good sign it was a failed idea.
Well, maybe they'll turn the 2019 Van Helsing movie into a stand alone story now. Just create a new villain and have it be a decent hour and a half period monster movie.
Well, maybe they'll turn the 2019 Van Helsing movie into a stand alone story now. Just create a new villain and have it be a decent hour and a half period monster movie.
I just saw the new Mummy (I had a 9+ hour flight, and I couldn't sleep, so I was desperate for something to watch, that's my only excuse) and, oh! I don't even know what to say. It may not be the absolute worst movie ever made, but it's definitely a candidate. Or, put it another way: I have always loved the original, and I still do. I also remember back in '99 going to see the (then) new version and absolutely hating it, thinking it was the most disgraceful pile of &*(*^^*( insult to a true horror classic, actually feeling sick as I left the theatre; but, terrible as the Mummy '99 obviously was, this version makes the Mummy '99 look like the original.
That's the only way I can say it without getting censored.
That's the only way I can say it without getting censored.
That's not really what happened. Dracula Untold was conceived, written, and shot as a standalone film, but Universal started making its plans for a shared monster universe while that film was late in production, so the filmmakers were asked, as an afterthought, to do reshoots in order to add a present-day epilogue that could potentially be used to tie the film into whatever shared universe they eventually came up with, just in case they decided they wanted to include it. And then they decided they didn't, because that attempt at a half-hearted retroactive inclusion was pretty obviously a bad idea. But that doesn't mean the Dark Universe itself was a bad idea. It could've worked if they'd handled it better.
I think the Legendary Monsterverse is a good example of an effective way to build a shared universe. To start with, Godzilla 2014 was a standalone film, or at most a setup for a Godzilla series, although it did establish the idea of the Monarch monster-tracking organization, something that could potentially be a linking element for a franchise. Then came Kong: Skull Island, which worked very well as a standalone, but also did a good job providing exposition about Monarch and the monsters, laying the pipe for future films in a way that served that story and thus didn't feel like an intrusion. (Although the post-credits tag scene didn't really work, because it so obviously had nothing to do with K:SI, and was trying to set up a future movie that would take place nearly half a century later and wouldn't have any of the same characters in it. But at least you could skip the tag scene if you wanted.)
I know all that, but what I and everyone else went to see in the cinema was Universal's statement that they were creating a combined universe too, and a lot of classic horror fans were excited. Then they shat on their own idea in short order.
Then tried to do it all over again, which they did, complete with the shitting on and curb stomping their own project part afterwards.
It's going to make history alright, as the one truely failed Combined Universe franchise of the 2000's.
DCEU will be right behind it.
Then tried to do it all over again, which they did, complete with the shitting on and curb stomping their own project part afterwards.
It's going to make history alright, as the one truely failed Combined Universe franchise of the 2000's.
DCEU will be right behind it.
Yeah ok dude. The DCEU has not had a single financial flop to date. Lets throw it away.
You know, I finally saw the recent The Mummy about a week ago, and enjoyed it. After all the anti-hype ("worst Tom Cruise movie ever" etc) I was expecting a Batman and Robin/After Earth-level catastrophe. Yes, it was nothing special, but it was fine.
I believe they may be referring to Green Lantern, which was WB's first failed (and how!) attempt at kicking off their CU.
I didn't think it was that bad, really -- certainly nowhere near as bad as Suicide Squad or BvS. It was just too cluttered. It tried to throw in too much comics continuity at once. It probably would've been better to start with a more Earthbound story and then saved the bigger cosmic stuff for the sequel.
Honestly, I always felt Green Lantern mainly suffered from coming out in the same year as Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger, and X-Men: First Class. Those films were so good that it just didn't measure up. If it had come out five or six years earlier, when superhero films were pretty hit-or-miss in quality, I think it would've been better received -- not adored as one of the best, but not as deeply hated either.
Green Lantern is a space man, right? An Earthbound story might have hampered that appeal.
But more importantly, don’t save the cool stuff for the sequel that might never get made. IIRC that situation came up with the 90s Lost in Space plans.
The original comics were set on Earth, and it was some time before Hal Jordan even met the Guardians or another Green Lantern other than the late Abin Sur. (Tomar-Re was his first.) GL has been both an Earth-based and a space-based hero at different times.
Plus, movies are made for general audiences, so it's a good idea to ease them into the weirder stuff. Marvel started out with the relatively grounded concept of a billionaire in a robotic combat suit before pushing the envelope to deal with gods, aliens, and so forth. Starting a DC film universe with an Earth-centric film wouldn't be a bad idea, given that most DC heroes other than GL are Earth-based.
But they crammed in too much "cool stuff" at once. Imagine if the first Iron Man had tried to include the origin, the Avengers, the Mandarin, AIM, and Fin Fang Foom all in the same movie.
Would have loved to see more/better entries to the Dark Universe(silly, silly name)...
Yeah, no. That’s 100% untruthful. The Green Lantern film was never supposed to be an attempt at kicking of a shared cinematic universe. Neither was Batman Begins or Superman Returns by the way.
That’s like saying that The Wolfman (2010) was Universal’s first failed attempt at kicking off their modern monsters cinematic universe.
It was to be the first film in a shared continuity (early drafts of the script even featured a Kent cameo) until it bombed like a MF, so Man of Steel became the new heir apparent upon release.
It's not like that at all.
And in Batman & Robin Clooney namechecks Superman. It doesn’t make it a first attempt at a shared continuity no more than Green Lantern was. And the aforementioned cameo you speak of was cut off before the movie started filming and not after the movie was released and bombed so it still doesn’t prove your bogus claim.