Universal Studios Classic Monsters Extended Universe - wuh?

[Christopher]

The Phantom and the Hunchback of Notre Dame are odd cases in that, yes, they're the original Universal Monsters, dating back to the silent era, but they never interacted with the other Monsters in the later films.

I'm not sure either of them really qualifies as a "monster," though. They're just people with severe physical deformities. They were both ostracized and treated like monsters because of the people's intolerance of their appearance, much like Frankenstein's Monster, but they were both just ordinary humans otherwise. There have been other physically deformed humans in Universal films who were not considered monsters, like Fritz and Ygor. All the full-fledged Universal Monsters are either cursed supernatural entities (vampire, undead mummy, lycanthrope) or scientific anomalies (reanimated cadaverous construct, invisible person, evolutionary missing link).

It's only a problem if you let it be one. Aren't the literary Dracula and Frankenstein set about a Century apart?

At least. The events of Frankenstein (the novel) are dated "17--," while Dracula is set in 1890. The movie version of Frankenstein is apparently set sometime around the turn of the 20th century; I'm not sure when the Dracula movie is set. However, the advantage of having immortal characters is that their relative chronology ceases to be much of an issue.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

True. But Karloff did return to the Frankenstein series as a mad scientist three movies later, while supporting actors like Lionel Atwell and Dwight Frye played multiple roles over the course of the Frankenstein films, sometimes one after another.

I give the supporting actors a pass, since they were never the headliners in the monster role, and used for their character flavor. In that regard, Atwill and Frye are no different than Michael Ripper or George Woodbridge in many of Hammer's horror movies.

Is Jekyll and Hyde considered a Universal Monster? I'd always thought it was just The Mummy, Frankenstein's Monster, Dracula, and The Creature from the Black Lagoon.

No, Hyde and his other half are not Universal monsters. The only other legitimate Universal monster who (inexplicably) never earns a "place at the table" of "classic monster" consideration is Dr. Wilfred Glendon--better known as The Werewolf of London (1935). He was the studio's first werewolf in a Pierce make-up on par with his other masterworks, but is treated like the stepchild no one acknowledges. If not for the monster magazine craze of the 50s - 60s, he would have been forgotten.

The Phantom and the Hunchback of Notre Dame are odd cases in that, yes, they're the original Universal Monsters, dating back to the silent era, but they never interacted with the other Monsters in the later films. Although the murderous Hunchback in HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN was obviously intended as a stand-in for Quasimodo, even to the extent of him being obsessed with a gypsy girl!


(The problem with Quasimodo is that his story is set back in medieval France, centuries before the other tales.)

No, those monsters (the Hunchback and the Phantom) did not interact, but the Invisible Man and the Creature from the Black Lagoon never crossed over with the others either (both set in different time periods from the rest) , yet are still accepted as part of the UNI-monster franchise.

 

[Christopher]

What I find interesting about the Creature films is how non-supernatural the Gill-Man is, and how he’s approached throughout as a subject for scientific investigation, more a large, exotic animal to be captured and studied than a force of evil. True, Frankenstein’s Monster and the Invisible Man were creations of science, but it was a fanciful pseudoscience of an imaginary past, and both characters were more human than the Gill-Man. And while the monsters in the other films were met only with superstitious fear by those around them, the lead characters in the Creature films see it as an entity that can be understood by science and even reconciled with through compassion. It reflects the era in which these films came out, the ’50s, when science had displaced the supernatural as the most powerful perceived force in the world, or at least in the world of cinema — when science was the source of both our greatest fears and our greatest hopes. Maybe that’s why the Gill-Man was the last of the Universal monsters.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm not sure either of them really qualifies as a "monster," though. They're just people with severe physical deformities. They were both ostracized and treated like monsters because of the people's intolerance of their appearance, much like Frankenstein's Monster, but they were both just ordinary humans otherwise. There have been other physically deformed humans in Universal films who were not considered monsters, like Fritz and Ygor. .

Well, they're Universal Monsters in the sense that they were headliners (unlike Ygor) played by Lon Chaney Sr. in monster makeup. And they've been included in the pantheon for decades, with regards to books and articles and merchandising. There's a "Phantom of the Opera" action figure, sporting a "Universal Monsters" logo, sitting on my bookshelf as I type this, and I'll fess to owning a complete set of Universal Monsters plushies, which includes the Phantom and the Hunchback.

(And the Phantom, in particular, carries all sorts of spooky Gothic vibes: He lives underground in the catacombs, sleeps in a coffin, poses as a ghost, and cultivates an aura of mystery and magic and illusion. He's not just an ordinary guy with a deformity; he's a mad genius who is almost superhuman in his abilities.)

And, of course, both the Phantom and Quasimodo were famously played by Chaney Sr., establishing a direct lineage to Lon Chaney Jr. and the later monsters.

 

[Redfern]

I can't play the Mummy clip so I have no frame of reference for this newest iteration, but I thought I'd just note two considerably different approaches to the theme.

In several movies, arguably most of them, the mummy is usually depicted as a "weapon of vengeance", a variation of the "golem" legend. Someone having strong cultural ties to "ancient" Egypt invokes a spell to animate a "guardian" of a "tomb" to strike at the infidels who dared defile it. Sometime the mummy is just a mindless animated cadaver; other times it shows an element of "will", occasionally even turning against his master.

But in the iconic Karloff version, the mummy is fully self aware, driven by his own goals, "regenerating" into a human state and is outright charismatic. In fact, he comes across a bit like Lugosi's Dracula. The biggest distinction, he believes a certain woman of the "present" is the reincarnated spirit of a lover from his time. While the theme of the mummy believing some lady to be a lost love from ancient Egypt would often be key in the later movies, the concept of the desiccated corpse, rejuvenating to a state in which he he can intermingle in "normal" society without (much) suspicion was not popularized again until the Brenden Frasier films.

Point being, I wonder in which, if either of these directions will this movie take?

 

[Greg Cox]

But in the iconic Karloff version, the mummy is fully self aware, driven by his own goals, "regenerating" into a human state and is outright charismatic. In fact, he comes across a bit like Lugosi's Dracula.

No surprise there. The screenplay for THE MUMMY was written by John L. Balderston, who had previously adapted Bram Stoker's Dracula for the Broadway stage version . . . starring Lugosi.

 

[Christopher]

Well, they're Universal Monsters in the sense that they were headliners (unlike Ygor) played by Lon Chaney Sr. in monster makeup. And they've been included in the pantheon for decades, with regards to books and articles and merchandising.

I'm just uneasy with the idea of referring to people with physical disabilities as "monsters." Although I guess you could argue that neither Frankenstein's creation nor the Gill-Man really deserves the apellation either. And while Rains's Invisible Man was certainly evil, it's an odd use of the term "monster" to refer to someone who's just human aside from being see-through.

And, of course, both the Phantom and Quasimodo were famously played by Chaney Sr., establishing a direct lineage to Lon Chaney Jr. and the later monsters.

Which I kind of feel is the only reason Chaney Jr. had a career in these things, since he really wasn't a very impressive or charismatic actor compared to his co-stars.

In several movies, arguably most of them, the mummy is usually depicted as a "weapon of vengeance", a variation of the "golem" legend. Someone having strong cultural ties to "ancient" Egypt invokes a spell to animate a "guardian" of a "tomb" to strike at the infidels who dared defile it. Sometime the mummy is just a mindless animated cadaver; other times it shows an element of "will", occasionally even turning against his master.

But in the iconic Karloff version, the mummy is fully self aware, driven by his own goals, "regenerating" into a human state and is outright charismatic. In fact, he comes across a bit like Lugosi's Dracula. The biggest distinction, he believes a certain woman of the "present" is the reincarnated spirit of a lover from his time. While the theme of the mummy believing some lady to be a lost love from ancient Egypt would often be key in the later movies, the concept of the desiccated corpse, rejuvenating to a state in which he he can intermingle in "normal" society without (much) suspicion was not popularized again until the Brenden Frasier films.

Point being, I wonder in which, if either of these directions will this movie take?

Well, since the Mummy is female in this version, it'd certainly be interesting if she were trying to find the reincarnation of the woman she loved. Anyway, judging by the trailer, she does seem to be an intelligent antagonist, but I don't think she can blend in as a normal-looking human, unless that's in parts that the trailer hasn't shown.

 

[Redfern]

So I wasn't just imagining things. Thanks for the explanation, Greg.

I saw various other mummy outings years before I finally caught Karloff's portrayal. I found it fascinating it took the intervention of an Egyptian goddess, Isis, to finally thwart Imhotep. Mummies as golems were usually taken out by mortal men, even if it took a bit of effort.

 

[Kemaiku]

The taglines and desrcriptions for this one keep implying she's striving to gain the power and influence she was denied in her previous life.

So a would-be female Pharoah or other leader who was put into a cursed coma, or killed but have the deal with the devil angle to resurrect.

Either way the story seem to be that she was wronged and robbed of power and is going to take it by tearing down everyone elses first (scenes of Parliament being destroyed etc)

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm just uneasy with the idea of referring to people with physical disabilities as "monsters." Although I guess you could argue that neither Frankenstein's creation nor the Gill-Man really deserves the apellation either. And while Rains's Invisible Man was certainly evil, it's an odd use of the term "monster" to refer to someone who's just human aside from being see-through..

Oh, I take your point. I was thinking of "monsters" in the sense of Universal Monsters (TM). And the Phantom and Quasimodo have been traditionally included under that umbrella for ages, thanks to Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine, Halloween costumes, Aurora monster models, etc.

Mind you, The Hunchback of Notre Dame by Victor Hugo is really more of a historical novel than a horror story, and one can even debate whether the classic silent movie is really a monster movie (unlike The Phantom of the Opera which was intended to be creepy and spooky from Day One.) One wonders whether Quasimodo would have ended up as a famous movie "monster" if not for the whole Chaney/Universal connection that got attached to it retroactively.

Was the Victor Hugo novel routinely grouped with Frankenstein and Dracula before the movies?

 

[JD]

So Russell Crowe's character is Dr. Jekyll? Interesting.

The theory right now is that Jekyll and the monster hunting group he works for, The Prodigium, are going to be the Nick Fury/S.H.I.E.L.D. of the UMCU and will connect the movies to each other. The big question is whether or not Hyde exists yet.

IGN's post trailer release interview with Alex Kurtzman reveals some new details:
The movie takes place in the Middle East, and The Mummy is awakened "because of what's happening there", but from the trailer they do appear to move on to other places as it goes on.
Tom Cruise's character is a "bad man", but the events of the movie might cause him to "find his humanity".
Obviously he wouldn't give a concrete yes or no, but it sounds like there's a chance Tom Cruise might be in more than just this one Monsters movie.
Annabelle Wallis's character, Jenny Halsey, works for "cultural heritage", so she's an archeologist going around the Middle East protecting important sites. Kurtzman said, "she also has a secret that is incredibly significant to the story".
He also doesn't rule out them introducing new monsters into the universe.
The Prodigium's name comes from the Latin phrase prodigium vel monstrum, which means "a warning of monsters". Dr. Jekyll is their "central voice", and how old he is will be a big question.

 

[Greg Cox]

The taglines and desrcriptions for this one keep implying she's striving to gain the power and influence she was denied in her previous life.

So a would-be female Pharoah or other leader who was put into a cursed coma, or killed but have the deal with the devil angle to resurrect.

Either way the story seem to be that she was wronged and robbed of power and is going to take it by tearing down everyone elses first (scenes of Parliament being destroyed etc)

All of which reminds me of Queen Tera in Bram Stoker's 1903 mummy novel The Jewel of Seven Stars, of which the most notable film adaptation is probably Hammer's BLOOD FROM THE MUMMY'S TOMB (1971).

Not that I'm suggesting that the new movie is literally adapting Stoker's novel or remaking the Hammer movie, but I wonder if Seven Stars helped inspired this new MUMMY to a degree?

(The novel is in public domain, btw. I reprinted it at Tor several years ago.)

 

[Christopher]

Annabelle Wallis's character, Jenny Halsey, works for "cultural heritage", so she's an archeologist going around the Middle East protecting important sites.

Then I wish they'd cast a Middle Eastern actress in the role. It's their culture, so they're the ones who have the most at stake in preserving it. And given modern stereotypes, it's important to have positive portrayals of Mideastern characters in fiction. What bugs me about the trailer is that the cast seems very, very white aside from Boutella (although Courtney B. Vance is in it as a colonel, according to IMDb).

 

[JD]

IGN's posted another article with a few interesting bits and pieces about the movie.
I know don't know if anything has been announced officially, but Kurtzman said that Dracula Untold is not part of this Monsters universe.
Van Helsing will not appear in this movie since he's getting his own later.
The headline for the article says the original movies exist in this universe, but the actual quotes don't seem that definite. He's starts by kind of saying no, but then says the originals exist in "a continuity", which seems kind of vague to me.
The original books will not exist, or at least not be referred to, in the movies.

 

[Greg Cox]

The headline for the article says the original movies exist in this universe, but the actual quotes don't seem that definite. He's starts by kind of saying no, but then says the originals exist in "a continuity", which seems kind of vague to me.
The original books will not exist, or at least not be referred to, in the movies.

Sounds like the headline was overstating things and/or jumping to conclusions, which is pretty much par for the course these days.

My guess is that the Monsters will come with histories, which may vaguely echo the original movies in their broad strokes, but which does NOT mean that those movies are officially "canon" or anything that literal.

And it makes sense that the Monsters wouldn't necessarily exist as fictional characters from famous novels if they existed in real life.

(The Hammer DRACULA films were actually a bit inconsistent with regards to how infamous the name "Dracula" was. In some of the movies, it's instantly recognized as the name of a legendary vampire. In other movies, the name means nothing to clueless travelers who have no idea that accepting an invitation to Castle Dracula is probably a bad idea.)

 

[Gaith]

(And the Phantom, in particular, carries all sorts of spooky Gothic vibes: He lives underground in the catacombs, sleeps in a coffin, poses as a ghost, and cultivates an aura of mystery and magic and illusion. He's not just an ordinary guy with a deformity; he's a mad genius who is almost superhuman in his abilities.)

And don't forget, he fought Sherlock Holmes mano a mano, in what totally remains his finest hour in any medium.

 

[Greg Cox]

And don't forget, he fought Sherlock Holmes mano a mano, in what totally remains his finest hour in any medium.

Heck, there's at least three different "Holmes vs The Phantom of the Opera" stories out there, including two prose novels and a graphic novel.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

About the Creature's treatment: the lead character in the final installment--The Creature Walks Among Us (Dr. William Barton) exploited the creature for his own ambitions--first capturing him, performing surgery to transform it into an air-breather, and ultimately trying to pin a murder on him.

Well, they're Universal Monsters in the sense that they were headliners (unlike Ygor) played by Lon Chaney Sr. in monster makeup. And they've been included in the pantheon for decades, with regards to books and articles and merchandising. And, of course, both the Phantom and Quasimodo were famously played by Chaney Sr., establishing a direct lineage to Lon Chaney Jr. and the later monsters.

Yep, and no one should forget that point--Universal continued to market the Chaney characters as part of the actor's "bizarre" and "weird" make-up creations, exploiting their physical deformities as an object of horror. Moreover, Universal wasted no time considering hunchbacked characters as "support monsters" or something to be reviled in Frankenstein (Fritz) or mocked, as in the case of Daniel in House of Frankenstein.

(The Hammer DRACULA films were actually a bit inconsistent with regards to how infamous the name "Dracula" was. In some of the movies, it's instantly recognized as the name of a legendary vampire. In other movies, the name means nothing to clueless travelers who have no idea that accepting an invitation to Castle Dracula is probably a bad idea.)

I thought the standard was that locals from wherever Dracula lived were all aware of him, so it made sense that travelers would not know the legend?

 

[Greg Cox]

I thought the standard was that locals from wherever Dracula lived were all aware of him, so it made sense that travelers would not know the legend?

Usually. But it was inconsistent. In TASTE OF THE BLOOD OF DRACULA, Dracula is legendary enough that folks in London react to his name. "Dracula!" But later, in SCARS OF DRACULA, we're back to unwary travelers wandering cluelessly up to the castle . . . .

 

[publiusr]

A movie I really wanted to be good was THE KEEP.
That was the best way to introduce an ancient vampire