Universal's CLASSIC MONSTERS Thread

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Sickle_Claw wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Sickle_Claw wrote:

Im not sure how they can continue, with how badly this movie was received. What I heard about the end and about the Prodigium organization makes me worry they might try to make the movie a bit avenger lite. I mean have main monster villains but also have an army of 'good' monsters to fight them.

That wouldn't work at all. No. And even if the international market gives this movie a profit, it still wouldn't be able to guarantee a sequel. The Last Airbender, Battleship, Dracula Untold-which was originally supposed to start this in the first place-, Warcraft, etc. All made a profit thanks to international markets, yet none of them got a sequel.

Im just saying according to what happens in the end.

Spoiler:

But how many movies can Universal make until they lose money? Not only that, but unlike superhero movies, which have heroes/heroines that are timeless, most of these old monsters are very much products of the 1930's and 1940's. and we might as well throw in Halloween too. I heard that Bride Of Frankenstein is starting to get made, if it does, then the law of diminishing returns is not in it's favor.  

Yeah, and the whole trying to force hunchback of notre dame and phantom of the opera into it really has me confused as well for what they are trying to do.

It looks like Tom Cruise tried to save The Mummy reboot.

This is what happens when you give the writers of Transformers 2 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 the keys to the Universal Monsters franchise. At least Stephen Sommers had some semblance of a good track record before pitching his re-imagined Mummy movie to Universal

"A studio such as Universal, which reaped a fortune from rebooting a classic movie like Jurassic Park with Jurassic World should know better."

Well for starters, Jurassic World did not exist to kickstart an entire cinematic universe and functioned as both a standalone sci-fi monster/adventure film and a sequel to the original classic. Because the first film (and subsequent franchise built around it from sequels to games) had become so beloved, jettisoning all that would have certainly have alienated fans. It was a "soft-reboot" in the same sense that The Force Awakens brought back the Star Wars saga in a big way. Unfortunately, even if Universal did try to make this new Mummy movie a belated sequel to the Brendan Fraser movies it would have not felt the same because the quality of the production on each film declined with each film.

Another huge problem here is that nobody was asking for mummy Impossible. Nobody.

Why couldn't it have been a lower budget film with more emphasis on actual tension and scares? I mean I didn't expect it to be the most terrifying thing ever with a hard R but come on.

I still say that minus the truck crash part, all the scenes of Cruise in the van being chased look like they ripped it straight out of Jurassic World, but with Mummy's instead of raptors. There's the Mummy's next to the van, even one that bursts through a window and scares the female lead. Haven't actually seen the film though.

It looks like Tom Cruise had far too much power when making The Mummy.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

It looks like Tom Cruise had far too much power when making The Mummy.

Yep. Came  to post similar article

http://screenrant.com/tom-cruise-control-the-mummy-production-alex-kurtzman/

The Universal Monsterverse cast photo was photoshopped.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

The Universal Monsterverse cast photo was photoshopped.

Oh wow thats...just beyond embarrassing.

Sickle_Claw wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

The Universal Monsterverse cast photo was photoshopped.

Oh wow thats...just beyond embarrassing.

It kind of reminds me of how the cast of Fant4stic was cut out of the one shot of Fox's Marvelverse cast. But at least that happened after Fant4stic bombed. This happened before The Mummy was released.

This is a bad omen...Not even the DCMU had this rough a start. And even after BvS and Suicide Squad, people still wanted it to succeed. Thankfully, Wonder Woman was a great start that finally gave fans true optimism and hope. With Universal's monsterverse, I don't see that many people caring about these movies anywhere near as much.

That's hilarious and creepy

The Mummy is going to be cost Universal $95 million dollars.

This is even worse the Dracula: Untold. At least that movie made triple it's budget and made a small profit. Not even the DCMU had this bad a start.

Was watching the Brendan Fraser Mummy the other night, and I just love that movie to pieces. It's not just the nostalgia talking, either. I first saw the movie in the basement of my uncle's house, and I remember watching the credits in anticipation of one more good jump scare. The movie has a perfect blend of horror, action, and fun. Sure, it's cheesy as Wisconsin, but that adds to its appeal in the same way the cheese adds to Independence Day's appeal. I haven't seen the new Mummy, but everything I've heard about it thus far tells me all I need to know. It's a shallow attempt as resurrecting a classic that nobody wanted.

In the early days of the MCU, before there really WAS an MCU or a DCMU, and there were just a handful of unconnected Marvel movies... Iron Man, Spider-Man, X-Men, you could really tell that studios weren't entirely sure this thing would take off. They had no idea comic book movies could have a demand. They simply saw a well proven idea, and wanted to see if they could replicate that success on the big screen. These early movies started out very conservatively made. Plot not too complicated, costumes never very exotic, just the simple Spider-Man vs Green Goblin, X-Men vs Magneto and the Brotherhood. The writers never bogged the films down with unnecessary connections. They never made distinctions between villains unless they absolutely needed to. The costume designers made sure to keep it grounded and realistic. Black leather flight suits instead of yellow and blue spandex, classic red and blue spidey-suit, sans web gauntlets and armpit webbing. They tied in the Green Goblin with military application, instead of a madman's odd lunacy. They made the Goblin costume look like armor instead of tights and didn't give him a broomstick. Instead of a mystical Chinese warlord forcing Tony Stark to create Iron Man, it was the Taliban that acted as the catalyst. In 2008, the Taliban and other Middle Eastern terrorist groups were as much a threat, if not moreso, to America as they are today. In a word, those early super-hero movies were simple. The idea that there could be an CU didn't really arise in the public's mind until after the credits rolled on Iron Man.

Fast foreward to today: the MCU is a HUGE success, perhaps the most successful brands after Star Wars. Every kid in the country knows who Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, the Incredible Hulk, Black Widow, the Falcon, Ant-Man, and so many other are. Even if they never picked up a comic book in their life. Many of Marvel's best have moved from obscurity to fan favorites. But Marvel took their time. They went with the big names first, then moved into the more obscure figures. They took their time. They planned it out. They created an MCU carefully and planned it out years ahead. Then the DCMU came crashing in. They wanted everything right now. No time for planning, they had to play catch up to Marvel and get on the wagon before it was too late. Whereas DC usually has only showcased Batman and Superman in their movies, now they had to introduce not only obscure characters, but characters who hadn't been popular in moving pictures in decades, like Wonder Woman. They stumbled the first couple tries because they tried throwing everything in at once, instead of the characters coming one at a time. They didn't craft it carefully like Marvel did, and they suffered for it. They introduced obscure characters like the Suicide Squad and tried replicating Guardians of the Galaxy with it. They simply didn't know what they wanted from it, and tried getting complicated with it to compete with Marvel's built up universe.

Now, everybody wants a CU. Universal with their horror classics, Fox with Terminator, Sony with Ghostbusters, and they're all failing miserably because they think that just because the idea of a CU is proven, they don't have to do the hard work in setting it up. Heck, New Line Cinema has made a better CU than all those studios put together with their The Conjuring Universe, and they didn't even intend on it becoming one. Now they have 2 spin offs coming, with one successful one already out along side 2 main movies and a third on the way. And they did it by making quality, not quantity. The Conjuring are good, scary movies, with the rewatch value of The Shining or Halloween, simply because they put so much effort into it, you notice new things each time you watch it, and it always manages to remain legitimately scary. THAT'S what Universal should have done. They should have forgone the levity and action of the MCU and DCMU, and all the other studio's failed attempts, and made their horror icons what they are: horror. Nobody wants to see The Mummy looking hot walking down a London street, smashing every window on the way. They want to see this:

I just think that many/most of the old monsters are too much of a product of their times. You can do a realistic Dracula movie since he was a real person. The 1992 movie made by Francis Ford Coppola is proof of it. To this day, it's not only my favorite horror movie, but one of my personal all time favorites. Wolfman and The Creature From The Black Lagoon might work, but only as DNA splicing experiments gone wrong. Other then those 3, I don't see how these monsters can work in a modern day setting.

The Mummy has made $350.6 million dollars, but only $75 million came from American movie goers.

And it has a 15% Rotten Tomatoes rating.


This movie looks like Dracula: Untold 2.0.

The Mummy will be released on digital on August 22 and on home video on September 12.

Get the coffin ready. RIP Dark Universe.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

The Mummy will be released on digital on August 22 and on home video on September 12.

Get the coffin ready. RIP Dark Universe.

WOW that's quick. Meanwhile guardians of the galaxy still showing at my theater today and came out May 5th i think.

Not trying to start a fanboy war just stating how terrible Mummy is doing compared to other blockbusters. I wonder if they will try to start over? Because guardians and WW ate this "universe" movie alive faster than a zombie.

Troyal1 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

The Mummy will be released on digital on August 22 and on home video on September 12.

Get the coffin ready. RIP Dark Universe.

WOW that's quick. Meanwhile guardians of the galaxy still showing at my theater today and came out May 5th i think.

Not trying to start a fanboy war just stating how terrible Mummy is doing compared to other blockbusters. I wonder if they will try to start over? Because guardians and WW ate this "universe" movie alive faster than a zombie.

Good luck with that. This was supposed to start it after Dracula: Untold failed and was rendered into being a standalone movie. It's a lot like how Green Lantern was supposed to start the DCMU but failed and Man Of Steel did...Not that it was that much better, mind you.

Besides, other then Spider Man, how many things have been rebooted/remade multiple times successfully? Very few. Just look at Fox with the Fantastic 4. The unreleased Roger Corman one is still the best after all this time and the most recent one, Fant4stic turned out to be one of the worst, if not THE worst, superhero movies to have ever been made. Also, look at all the movie adaptations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novel 'The Lost World'. It's been 92 years since the original 1925 version came out, and it's STILL the best movie adaptation. I have the Image Entertainment version, which has 90% of the original footage, and despite it's age, it's a great movie.

Not only that, but does anybody think that DVD/Blu Ray sales will save it/give The Mummy a fighting chance like Power Rangers 2017 got with good toy/DVD sales? I don't.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

The Mummy will be released on digital on August 22 and on home video on September 12.

Get the coffin ready. RIP Dark Universe.

WOW that's quick. Meanwhile guardians of the galaxy still showing at my theater today and came out May 5th i think.

Not trying to start a fanboy war just stating how terrible Mummy is doing compared to other blockbusters. I wonder if they will try to start over? Because guardians and WW ate this "universe" movie alive faster than a zombie.

Good luck with that. This was supposed to start it after Dracula: Untold failed and was rendered into being a standalone movie. It's a lot like how Green Lantern was supposed to start the DCMU but failed and Man Of Steel did...Not that it was that much better, mind you.

Besides, other then Spider Man, how many things have been rebooted/remade multiple times successfully? Just look at Fox with the Fantastic 4. Also, look at all the movie adaptations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novel 'The Lost World'. It's been 92 years since the original 1925 version came out, and it's STILL, the best movie adaptation made. Even with all the other movie adaptations that came afterwords. Not only that, but does anybody think that DVD/Blu Ray sales will save it/give it a fighting chance like Power Rangers 2017 got with good toy/DVD sales? I don't.

I agree with you. But I don't think they should totally give up yet.

I don't think they are planning this monsterverse thing well at all. They need to take a long step back and really evaluate if they can make a good universe with good films. Personally I believe they can do it right. But they need careful planning and a lot of talent. Make it lower budget, rated R and more horror focused.

After Dracula untold you think they would have learned but they did not. I have no idea why they thought mummy impossible would be a good idea.

Troyal1 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

The Mummy will be released on digital on August 22 and on home video on September 12.

Get the coffin ready. RIP Dark Universe.

WOW that's quick. Meanwhile guardians of the galaxy still showing at my theater today and came out May 5th i think.

Not trying to start a fanboy war just stating how terrible Mummy is doing compared to other blockbusters. I wonder if they will try to start over? Because guardians and WW ate this "universe" movie alive faster than a zombie.

Good luck with that. This was supposed to start it after Dracula: Untold failed and was rendered into being a standalone movie. It's a lot like how Green Lantern was supposed to start the DCMU but failed and Man Of Steel did...Not that it was that much better, mind you.

Besides, other then Spider Man, how many things have been rebooted/remade multiple times successfully? Just look at Fox with the Fantastic 4. Also, look at all the movie adaptations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novel 'The Lost World'. It's been 92 years since the original 1925 version came out, and it's STILL, the best movie adaptation made. Even with all the other movie adaptations that came afterwords. Not only that, but does anybody think that DVD/Blu Ray sales will save it/give it a fighting chance like Power Rangers 2017 got with good toy/DVD sales? I don't.

I agree with you. But I don't think they should totally give up yet.

I don't think they are planning this monsterverse thing well at all. They need to take a long step back and really evaluate if they can make a good universe with good films. Personally I believe they can do it right. But they need careful planning and a lot of talent. Make it lower budget, rated R and more horror focused.

After Dracula untold you think they would have learned but they did not. I have no idea why they thought mummy impossible would be a good idea.

Here's the thing. The Mummy will lose Universal money. Man Of Steel, for all its faults-which are huge-at least made a respectable profit. Besides, the last time I checked, Bride Of Frankenstein is already stating to be made.

I still think that most of these old monsters are too much of products of their time. Other then Dracula, who was actually a real-life person, I don't see many monsters that can stand up to modern day times. Maybe Wolfman and Creature From The Black Lagoon as DNA experiments/gene splicing test subjects gone wrong, but even then, you'd have be very careful with that.

Universal’s Van Helsing Reboot Eyes Channing Tatum
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/872025-universals-van-helsing-reboot-eyes-channing-tatum#vJyVpAvHbdHzb5BI.99

Dead2009 wrote:

Universal’s Van Helsing Reboot Eyes Channing Tatum
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/872025-universals-van-helsing-reboot-eyes-channing-tatum#vJyVpAvHbdHzb5BI.99

I never thought I'd say this, but... bring Stephen Sommers and Hugh Jackman back!!

I know that's as good as impossible at that stage, but at least I bought Jackman as a tortured and brutal hunter of monsters - Tatum doesn't fit that outline in the slightest.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Dead2009 wrote:

Universal’s Van Helsing Reboot Eyes Channing Tatum
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/872025-universals-van-helsing-reboot-eyes-channing-tatum#vJyVpAvHbdHzb5BI.99

I never thought I'd say this, but... bring Stephen Sommers and Hugh Jackman back!!

I know that's as good as impossible at that stage, but at least I bought Jackman as a tortured and brutal hunter of monsters - Tatum doesn't fit that outline in the slightest.

And this is even considering that it even gets made. So far, The Mummy has only made $390 million and only $79 million of it came domestically. How can Universal justify this movie? Better yet, I think that Bride Of Frankenstein is getting started to be made and based on this and the performance of Dracula: Untold...yeah. It's going to be a very hard sell.

It looks like the director of the failed Mummy reboot might not be staying long with the Dark Universe.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

It looks like the director of the failed Mummy reboot might not be staying long with the Dark Universe.

Perhaps it's because the universe won't exist at all? Just throwing that out there.

Troyal1 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

It looks like the director of the failed Mummy reboot might not be staying long with the Dark Universe.

Perhaps it's because the universe won't exist at all? Just throwing that out there.

At least not as long as Universal want's it to. Bride Of Frankenstein is starting to get made, but considering how bad The Mummy did, not to mention Dracula: Untold as well, it's going to be very hard to justify this cinematic universe if BOF underperforms as well. At least with the DCMU, their movies have managed to make a profit. And Wonder Woman has turned out to be a good movie as well. The Dark Universe can't claim either of those.

Crap.....The Mummy reboot made $400 million which may be enough to justify a sequel.

I still say that Universal should have used all this money to make an animated series that tied in to original trilogy with this new one.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Crap.....The Mummy reboot made $400 million which may be enough to justify a sequel.

I still say that Universal should have used all this money to make an animated series that tied in to original trilogy with this new one.

You and me both man... honestly if the argument of box office strength and public interest equal to the franchise you want to invest most in, then the Universal Monsters catalogue is too far down the ladder. Jurassic Park isn't cinematic universe material, but it's worth far more to Universal right now than their classic monsters are. They've had all these chances since The Mummy and they've blown them every single time. If they struck while the iron was still hot from Van Helsing (comparatively speaking) then maybe it'd be a different story.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Crap.....The Mummy reboot made $400 million which may be enough to justify a sequel.

I still say that Universal should have used all this money to make an animated series that tied in to original trilogy with this new one.

You and me both man... honestly if the argument of box office strength and public interest equal to the franchise you want to invest most in, then the Universal Monsters catalogue is too far down the ladder. Jurassic Park isn't cinematic universe material, but it's worth far more to Universal right now than their classic monsters are. They've had all these chances since The Mummy and they've blown them every single time. If they struck while the iron was still hot from Van Helsing (comparatively speaking) then maybe it'd be a different story.

I just think that this is a sign of 3 things.

1. Just how out of touch Universal really is.

2. How little they care about the JP franchise. How they really never cared since The Lost World, how it's been at the mercy of the directors (J.A. Bayona, the animatronics, and nostalgia/childhood love of dinosaurs are the main reasons I'm seeing JW:FK at this point) and writers since, and how much missed opportunities they have, etc.

3. How so little people care about the old Universal monsters. Other then Dracula, who was actually a real-life person, I just think that these Universal monsters are just products of their time.That and with the Tomb Raider and Castlevainia video game franchises, did we really need the Dark Universe anyway? I say no.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Crap.....The Mummy reboot made $400 million which may be enough to justify a sequel.

I still say that Universal should have used all this money to make an animated series that tied in to original trilogy with this new one.

You and me both man... honestly if the argument of box office strength and public interest equal to the franchise you want to invest most in, then the Universal Monsters catalogue is too far down the ladder. Jurassic Park isn't cinematic universe material, but it's worth far more to Universal right now than their classic monsters are. They've had all these chances since The Mummy and they've blown them every single time. If they struck while the iron was still hot from Van Helsing (comparatively speaking) then maybe it'd be a different story.

I just think that this is a sign of 3 things.

1. Just how out of touch Universal really is.

2. How little they care about the JP franchise. How they really never cared since The Lost World, how it's been at the mercy of the directors (J.A. Bayona, the animatronics, and nostalgia/childhood love of dinosaurs are the main reasons I'm seeing JW:FK at this point) and writers since, and how much missed opportunities they have, etc.

3. How so little people care about the old Universal monsters. Other then Dracula, who was actually a real-life person, I just think that these Universal monsters are just products of their time.That and with the Tomb Raider and Castlevainia video game franchises, did we really need the Dark Universe anyway? I say no.

(Disclaimer: Not really Dark Universe related, but more Universal/JP related tangent to follow)

While I agree with points 1 and 3 especially, since Universal should stop throwing money at the Dark Universe, I think it's debatable that they don't care at all about the JP franchise. I do think they have been greatly underestimating it for a long time now, but if they really didn't care then the director of the fifth film would have been another director for hire along the lines of Robert Stromberg (from Maleficent) or Alan Taylor. Ironically, its that kind of apathy that's more on display in Alex Kurtzman's take on The Mummy that really undid that movie from top to bottom. Especially since the man is far more known for his sloppy scripts than any kind of directing skills.

In all honesty, based on what we have been seeing about JW: Fallen Kingdom, I'm starting to believe that they aren't taking the route many of us feared they would, i.e. militarized dinosaurs, and could be going somewhere more akin to the Crichton books. Plus Bayona's set of skills are very well tailored to this kind of story and could make the more outlandish elements work better than the previous film. Plus the fact that we ARE getting a park builder game to coincide with the release of JW:FK is to me another indication that they're taking the hint, and if this proves to be a hit with the fans then it will be because they tapped into what would resonate with their audience and have more confidence in the franchise as a result. If all this optimism on my part proves in vain, at least they will have done SOMETHING more ambitious than a bunch of mobile games and the Lego game.

Yes, we still lack those much-talked about comics and an animated series or some kind of bridge story to really shore up connections between JP3 and JW. However, with the acquisition of DreamWorks Animation and all of their TV shows, they now have the assets to follow through with that, but these things do take time.