Universal Studios Classic Monsters Extended Universe - wuh?

[mos6507]

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.

It's the internet. People whine about things in an arbitrary way.

Especially since Universal invented the shared cinematic universe with Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man in 1943. They were doing it 65 years before Marvel.

Sorry. I don't buy it. Universal monster mashups were a marketing gimmick improvised out of thin air. Continuity from movie to movie was slim to none. The MCU was architected as a large coherent tapestry to cover tentpole releases several years downstream.

Doing films this way has no real precedent. The closest I could think of was George Lucas' long-range Star Wars strategy but that didn't have the same level of corporate buy-in. Maybe another would be Disney's ongoing tradition of adapting (and coopting) classic fairy-tales. But we're in this era where everything is sort of engineered and field-tested to the point where the board votes and billions of dollars of capital are earmarked for back-to-back popcorn movies. There's never been a time where so much resources and commitment is being focused like this. Of course, the downside is if the direction goes off the rails (as it did with DC or the Josh Trank Fantastic 4) then you're stuck with what you just laid down as canon.

 

[mos6507]

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!"

I think the Sommers Mummy movies (when they worked) were more of an homage to the Indiana Jones movies than anything else.

Wasn't Van Helsing the first real attempt to super-heroize the Universal franchise? They even had Hugh Jackman and they couldn't pull it off.

 

[Christopher]

Sorry. I don't buy it. Universal monster mashups were a marketing gimmick improvised out of thin air. Continuity from movie to movie was slim to none. The MCU was architected as a large coherent tapestry to cover tentpole releases several years downstream.

Just because two things aren't exactly identical in every respect, that doesn't mean one can't validly be considered the antecedent to the other. Obviously the MCU is a more elaborate and planned form of the practice, but Universal did pioneer crossing over characters from different series into a larger, interconnected series, however much you split hairs about the details. And yes, obviously Universal is imitating Marvel along with every other studio -- you're not telling us anything that hasn't been obvious to everyone for years now -- but the Universal Monsters franchise has more of a history behind it than other attempts we've seen. They did do it first, in a cruder form, and they're entitled to revive it.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

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.

Just because two things aren't exactly identical in every respect, that doesn't mean one can't validly be considered the antecedent to the other. Obviously the MCU is a more elaborate and planned form of the practice, but Universal did pioneer crossing over characters from different series into a larger, interconnected series, however much you split hairs about the details. And yes, obviously Universal is imitating Marvel along with every other studio -- you're not telling us anything that hasn't been obvious to everyone for years now -- but the Universal Monsters franchise has more of a history behind it than other attempts we've seen. They did do it first, in a cruder form, and they're entitled to revive it.

If that's the case then Fox also did it before Disney/Marvel with Alien vs. Predator in 2004. And New Line before Disney/Marvel with Freddy vs. Jason in 2003. And Toho/Daiei even before with Zatoichi Meets Yojimbo in 1970. And Toho even before that with King Kong vs. Godzilla in 1962. And…

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Sorry. I don't buy it. Universal monster mashups were a marketing gimmick improvised out of thin air.

Incorrect. In the first--Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man--there was direct continuation of character or events from Ghost of Frankenstein and The Wolf Man. Similarly, the next film--House of Frankenstein--picked up where FMTWM left off, along with plots of the previous film referred to. That was not loose, but cinema's first shared universe at work.

Continuity from movie to movie was slim to none. The MCU was architected as a large coherent tapestry

Not so coherent, as many a YouTube video found many plot holes and/or contradictory elements (some rather large) in this allegedly well planned universe...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Grendelsbayne]

^ Those aren't particularly impressive 'plot holes'.

Cap being misused is half the point of the movie (and hardly unbelievable in the context of govt. bureaucracies in which one decision maker does not share the same beliefs as another).

Thanos being overly byzantine is exactly what the character is supposed to be. Loki being in danger from Thanos is also partly the point. And the staff is not known to be as powerful as the tesseract when Thor leaves it behind. The audience also has no idea whether Thor actually has knowledge of the events of GotG or not. It's not exactly a galactic secret.

Then there's the 'why didn't other heros show up' bs question: betting Iron Man could show up in time at top speed is blatantly dumb. The climax of TDW lasted a few minutes and Iron Man is not automatically always available.

The Avengers assembled to stop Loki and then to get the Sceptre back. Their justification for independent action is clearly murky, so it's not all that strange that they don't instantly turn into a permanently active force.

If Hydra kept their files on Shield's regular network (even encrypted), they wouldn't have lasted so long.

Star-lord's batteries? Really? The definition of 'plot-hole' is being ridiculously abused here.

Just because the Avengers live at a base doesn't mean they don't ever go anywhere. And when it's really just a place for them to train, why should there be more than 1 superpowered guard on duty, especially everyone's out?

Cap going down with the plane is not even a plan at all. It's a last ditch effort (with no other option) to keep the plane's weapons from reaching civilization. And him jumping out of the plane would not achieve anything other than him being frozen in a slightly different spot.

The arc thing and the rainbow bridge stuff is sort of fair. Although the arc is not even remotely a major plot hole, and the black magic travel was already introduced in the first Thor movie, so its no cheat, and doesn't really need to be explained in full detail right off the bat.

So... when they say 'plot-holes so big even two hulks couldn't fill them', what they actually mean is nitpicks so idiotic even the Hulk would facepalm, right?

 

[JD]

IGN has a fairly long new interview with Alex Kurtzman about the "Dark Universe" movie.
FYI he also says that the original Universal Monster movies were the first MCU style shared universe.
He says that they will be keeping the classic designs, so we will be getting the white streak in the Bride of Frankenstein's hair, and the Monster will have bolts in his neck.
Jekyll and Prodigium will be rather ambiguous when it comes to whether or not they're good guys or bad guys.
It sounds like there might be a overarching big bad we haven't heard about yet.
Different movies will take place in different parts of the world.
The movies won't be full on horror, but there will be some scary parts.

 

[Christopher]

He says that they will be keeping the classic designs, so we will be getting the white streak in the Bride of Frankenstein's hair, and the Monster will have bolts in his neck.

I wish he hadn't said "bolts." That's perpetuating a myth, and as the guy in charge of the franchise, he should know better. They aren't "bolts." They aren't keeping the monster's head attached. As is demonstrated clearly in the movies, they're electrodes. They're the inputs for the electric current (or cosmic radiation, per the sequels) that reanimates the monster.

Anyway, it's not surprising that they're keeping the basic designs -- after all, those versions of the monster designs are the ones that Universal owns as its intellectual property. They don't own the Frankenstein story, they can't control who makes a movie based on it, but they do have a trademark on the Jack Pearce flat-top-and-electrodes design for the monster. So naturally they'd keep that look, and the other trademarked looks, as something they can use in merchandising and make a profit from. I bet that had more to do with the decision than any of the artistic or nostalgic sentiments Kurtzman talked about.

Although it's pretty clear that they aren't sticking exactly to their original Mummy design. Clearly they're taking some license. And I hope they don't stick too close to the Lon Chaney, Jr. Wolf Man design, which is really pretty lame as werewolf makeups go.

Kurtzman's also a bit off when he says "they'd already done three Frankenstein films and they'd already done Wolf Man films" when they did Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man. That was actually the fifth Frankenstein film (after the original, Bride of, Son of, and Ghost of F) and only the second Wolf Man film.

It's interesting that the director of the James Whale biopic Gods and Monsters is directing the Bride of Frankenstein film. That seems like a really excellent choice in terms of connection/insight into the material (although I haven't actually seen that movie -- I really should).

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Wasn't Van Helsing the first real attempt to super-heroize the Universal franchise? They even had Hugh Jackman and they couldn't pull it off.

I've never really understood why Universal didn't make a Van Helsing sequel. The box office doubled the budget. Expectation of diminishing returns, perhaps?

It's interesting that the director of the James Whale biopic Gods and Monsters is directing the Bride of Frankenstein film. That seems like a really excellent choice in terms of connection/insight into the material (although I haven't actually seen that movie -- I really should).

Very good film. The choice of Bill Condon as director makes me wonder if Ian McKellen, with whom he likes to work, might play Dr. Pretorius.

 

[Christopher]

I've never really understood why Universal didn't make a Van Helsing sequel. The box office doubled the budget. Expectation of diminishing returns, perhaps?

You don't think the scathing reviews were a factor?

Very good film. The choice of Bill Condon as director makes me wonder if Ian McKellen, with whom he likes to work, might play Dr. Pretorius.

Ooh, that would be neat. And considering that Pretorius was the source of Dark Universe's tagline, it would only seem appropriate to include him in the franchise.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

You don't think the scathing reviews were a factor?

Scathing reviews leading to diminishing returns on future installments. Yeah, I can see that.

I hated Van Helsing. I wanted to love it. I'd have been happy to like it. The first few minutes, in black and white, soared. But then it crashed spectacularly. I watched it again after a decade, thinking that maybe I was overly harsh at the time -- I had to push the Van Helsing video game hard when I was at EB Games, which could have instilled some bias -- but no, my initial judgment was confirmed. If anything, I think I hated it more than I'd remembered hating it.

The one good thing about Van Helsing is that Universal released those really nice [i[Dracula[/i], Frankenstein, and Wolfman DVD sets.

Ooh, that would be neat. And considering that Pretorius was the source of Dark Universe's tagline, it would only seem appropriate to include him in the franchise.

You can't have The Bride of Frankenstein without Dr. Pretorius. Well, I can't, anyway.

 

[JD]

Even I didn't like Van Helsing, and a movie has to be really bad for me to not be able find a way to like it.

 

[kirk55555]

I've never gotten the hate for Van Helsing. To me it was a watchable, if brainless, supernatural action movie. I'd compare it to movies like Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters and The Brothers Grimm, both of which I also liked (although VH would be the weaker of those three, it was still ok).

 

[Christopher]

I honestly don't remember much about Van Helsing except for an astonishingly bad CGI shot of the main character jumping from horse to horse on a carriage. I mean, that's something real stunt performers have been doing live since the days of silent film. It didn't need to be CGI. Which just makes the ineptitude of the CGI all the more egregious. If you're going to replace something doable in live action with a CG element, then it should look at least as good/convincing as a live version would.

 

[Tosk]

I hated Van Helsing. I wanted to love it. I'd have been happy to like it.

Same. The problem with Van Helsing was...there's just very little about it that even approaches mediocre. I liked the score, and some of the casting, but I'd be hard-pressed to say something else positive about it. As far as I'm concerned, the bigger the budget the worse a movie Sommers makes.

 

[Mudd]

Van Helsing struck me as a video game designed by a ten year-old consuming a diet of sugared soft drinks and candy bars.

 

[JD]

Alex Kurtzman has announced that they will be adding The Phantom of the Opera and The Hunchback of Notre Dame to the Dark Universe lineup.

 

[Christopher]

Alex Kurtzman has announced that they will be adding The Phantom of the Opera and The Hunchback of Notre Dame to the Dark Universe lineup.

Which kinda makes sense in that they were the first two Universal "monster" movies and are sometimes counted as part of the UM franchise... but kinda doesn't make sense because neither character is actually a monster, and it's kind of hard to see how either story could be modernized to the present day, especially Hunchback. They'd have to be extremely revisionist versions of the characters and concepts.

 

[JD]

Yeah, I was wondering about the time period too. Hunchback would probably be harder to modernize than Phantom tough.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Which kinda makes sense in that they were the first two Universal "monster" movies and are sometimes counted as part of the UM franchise... but kinda doesn't make sense because neither character is actually a monster, and it's kind of hard to see how either story could be modernized to the present day, especially Hunchback. They'd have to be extremely revisionist versions of the characters and concepts.

Well, considering how badly they've butchered Frankenstein's monster during the original iteration of Universal Monsters, I wouldn't be surprised if they're heavily revised.