Universal Monsters

Status
Not open for further replies.
In my opinion (obviously), that interpretation of Batman is boring, uninteresting and extremely stupid. I don't mind it in TDKR, it's just a harmless little Elseworlds story. It's like one of those cheesy Arnold Schwarzenegger movies from the 80s...big, angry guys with man **** beating each other up while they're dressed up in playsuits. But I don't want the "regular" Batman to be that way. I don't think the modern Batman comics are any good at all (well, except Batman 66). It's depressing and ugly stuff. I've seen better writing on the walls of public toilets. And the writer didn't even use a pencil...

If you like that version, that's fine. I just don't get it.


Good thing the new Batman will likely have very little in common with the ASBAR Batman. It also seems like Frank Miller's TDKR has a great influence on the appearance of this Batman, not so much the characterization.

Describing him as "extremely rough" probably means we'll finally see a Batman who is an incredible fighter and that he will kick the **** out of bad guys in ways we've never seen before in live action -- with precision and ruthlessness. It doesn't equate to him being a totally psychotic weirdo or a radical conservative.
 
I loved The Mummy we got with Fraser. And I haven't seen The Wolfman remake with Del Toro but I want to. What are some of your guys thoughts on it?
 
I loved The Mummy we got with Fraser. And I haven't seen The Wolfman remake with Del Toro but I want to. What are some of your guys thoughts on it?

I personally really liked it. It's got its problem and the ending is kinda lame, but the atmosphere and performances are all pretty fun. It's dopey, but if you aren't expecting a great flick, you'll get something out of it.
 
I personally really liked it. It's got its problem and the ending is kinda lame, but the atmosphere and performances are all pretty fun. It's dopey, but if you aren't expecting a great flick, you'll get something out of it.

How're the special fx and makeup overall?
 
I really liked the 2010 Wolfman. Has problems but it's a fun gory B-Movie. There is some weak cgi but most of it is done well enough. Some good make up too.
 
**** them. Seriously, **** them.

Now, I hope they fail and my interest has completely waned. This was an opporunity to create a unified series of horror movies on a grand scale for the masses; films that aren't scary because of violence, but because of TERROR, atomosphere, twists, turns, and thrilling moments. I would be totally fine with present day settings.

But instead of being creative and putting together great filmmaking teams/casts to produce horror films that are unique, they'll produce a bunch of CGI-fests with bloated budgets, second-rate talent, and formulaic scripts that will likely be influenced by superhero movies.

Beyond lame.

Pretty much cannot say it better. Summed it up perfectly.

It is days like this where I kind of regret the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe. It has turned Hollywood filmmaking, as if it were even possible, into even more homogenized, groupthink, corporate sludge. Oh well.
 
I loved The Mummy we got with Fraser. And I haven't seen The Wolfman remake with Del Toro but I want to. What are some of your guys thoughts on it?

The production values are fabulous and the make-up/costumes/cinematography are perfect. It even won an Oscar for the make-up special effects.

However, the direction is lackluster and very stiff (a little boring), the script is a Freudian nightmare and far too self-serious with silly twists at the end. And Del Toro is honestly quite bad in it. But the rest of the cast is good. It is fun in a late October, late night viewing sort of way. Even if it is November, you can still mine some fun out of it with moderately low expectations.
 
Thanks guys for the feedback, yeah I will at least check it out sometime soon.
 
Didn't like The Wolf Man. It relied too much on gore...

[BLACKOUT]And what was up with the Sikh?

Me: "Yeah, he's going to kick someone's ass! He's a Sikh, after all!:woot:"

(Sikh dies)

Me: " ...:csad:"

Pointless character. I bet there's a deleted scene out there where he fights a vampire or a werewolf.[/BLACKOUT]
 
Good thing the new Batman will likely have very little in common with the ASBAR Batman. It also seems like Frank Miller's TDKR has a great influence on the appearance of this Batman, not so much the characterization.

Describing him as "extremely rough" probably means we'll finally see a Batman who is an incredible fighter and that he will kick the **** out of bad guys in ways we've never seen before in live action -- with precision and ruthlessness. It doesn't equate to him being a totally psychotic weirdo or a radical conservative.

It could be, but if I'm right, you owe me a coke.
 
‘Guardians’ Director James Gunn: Shared Movie Universe ‘Business Model Is Flawed’
Maane Khatchatourian said:
If you’re worried about the recent influx and potential resulting unwieldiness of shared movie universes, you’re not alone. “Guardians of the Galaxy” writer-director James Gunn is just as concerned.

Gunn took to Facebook to voice his skepticism about studios “trying to grow franchises from non-existent films or middling successes.”

“Listen, I love big (a–) shared universes in movies, as well as huge franchises,” he wrote in a Facebook post titled “Carts Before Horses & Hollywood’s New Love of Shared Universes.” “But I’m a little worried about the numerous shared universes being planned by the studios, without having a strong base film to grow from — or in some cases, NO base film to grow from.”

The director implies that franchises like “Star Wars,” “Iron Man,” “The Dark Knight” and even “Transformers” and “Twilight” are in the clear because they were conceived as single films and only grew into movie series following audience demand.

“But these days studios are trying to grow trees without a strong seed,” he wrote. “Execs and producers and sometimes even directors are focused on the big picture, without perfecting the task directly in front of them — making a great movie.”

With Marvel, Warner Bros. and Universal planning movies a decade in advance, and studios bringing movie worlds into the TV realm, the forest is denser than ever.

“In short, I think this new business model is flawed,” he continued. “I think filmmakers and studios should be prepared for the big picture, but never, ever let it get in the way of making a single great film. Be a little more experimental and see what works as opposed to trying to force success.”

“Guardians of the Galaxy 2,” which follows the surprising success of “Guardians of the Galaxy” — the year’s highest grossing domestic film — hits theaters on May 5, 2017.
 
He's right. The Monsters surely can work together, but they don't need to. Universal should focus on making a good movie instead of making a movie universe. Getting sick of every studio trying to make their own MCU.
 
Personally, I have no real problem with it as long as the movies are good. This idea that "a shared universe limits creativity" line actually reeks of a lack of creativity in and of itself. Guess what Mr. Gunn, YOU just made a great movie that was also part of a shared universe, as did the Russo's, Jon Favreau, and Joss Whedon. So I really don't want to hear that nonsense, ESPECIALLY from you of all people. Plus it's not like the Universal monsters haven't crossed over before, so it's not that unusual.

As for the more action-adventuring thing, as long as it's more like the first Brendan Fraser Mummy movies (which I really like) and less like, say Van Helsing, then I'm fine with it.
 
You forgot Shane Black, one of the few MCU film Directors that actualy tried to go out of the trend with some stuff and delivered what i still consider the most entertaining MCU film yet.

There was actualy a thin line separating Mummy 1999 from Van Helsing, VH didn't have the best designs or execution, but the look itself was just about right, with the mysterious looking Transylvania and all. They should just try offering one-shot stand alone films, you can argue that the MCU films were a bit too searialized, unlike what Gunn is implying, even Guardians wasn't sompletely stand-alone, having left a lot of loose plot points to be later resolved (Thanos and Quill's father).

While this type of serialized cinema making is kinda working for Marvel, i don't want every film blockbuster around to be like that too, i mean, you have tv for those long running stories. Star Wars and Avatar are films that do come to mind when it comes to one-shot stories that were able to spawn more afterwards (Avatar still technically hasn't gotten its sequels yet, but they're a probability and Cameron seems to have a lot of ideas), Episode IV does seem like a single part of a bigger picture now, but when you look at it in the prespective of the 70s, it was very conclsive, i mean, the Empire's biggest weapon was destroyed and the Rebel alliance celebrates, only the following films revealed that this was just a small victory for them. Darth Vader himself was shot by the Millenium Falcon, if i had seen it back then i would probably have come under the impression that he was killed.

Back to topic, i have yet to watch Dracula Untold, this strategy seems like it's going to give some bad films that will most likely become guilty pleasures of mine (like Van Helsing). As for how i think the return of Universal Horror should go like, i think that like Golden Age Pixar, they should try making the best films they can without planning to continue their stories, but imply that it's all set in the same universe.

Here's what i think they should to with each one of their franchises:
-Phantom of the Opera: Go back to the original movie and book, hire somebody talented and passionate to do a thriller for this story. Could even have some tributes to the Silent movie, but should also be its oun beast.
-Frankenstein: Hire Del Toro, that's his passion project, discuss with him all the schedules, if he's only available in 2020, then lock him in that date already, in the meantime you can develop other properties.
-Creature of the Black Lagoon: Victorian era creature, make it interesting.
-The Mummy: I think they should divide this one in two different films, both set in the same universe of course, but completely different stories without any other connection besides being set in this crazy universe and dealing with a resurrected mummy. One Mummy film would be an adventure rollercoaster like the Frasier films, but hopefuly with better writting and Direction, while the other would be a Horror Gothic thriller like many are suggesting, but would get a lower budget.
-The Wolfman: Do another remake of the 1941 classic, take what worked in the last film, and try delivering something smarter.
-Van Helsing: Film dealing with an younger Van Helsing, could deal with anything ranging from Demons to Vampires, would be an interesting way to expand upon the Universal Horror universe from a more active point of view, would also allow to use the character as an action hero, while still not interfering with the Dracula story, since this would technicaly be a prequel to that.
-Dracula: Go back to the original novel and Bella Lugosi's version, spend as many years as you need to get this right.

There are many other Universal Horror film you could probably get a good remake of, and the brand could also include some new and fresh ideas too, like films that aren't remakes or reboots of past material, but are still set in this universe and expand upon it.
 
You forgot Shane Black, one of the few MCU film Directors that actualy tried to go out of the trend with some stuff and delivered what i still consider the most entertaining MCU film yet.

There was actualy a thin line separating Mummy 1999 from Van Helsing, VH didn't have the best designs or execution, but the look itself was just about right, with the mysterious looking Transylvania and all. They should just try offering one-shot stand alone films, you can argue that the MCU films were a bit too searialized, unlike what Gunn is implying, even Guardians wasn't sompletely stand-alone, having left a lot of loose plot points to be later resolved (Thanos and Quill's father).

While this type of serialized cinema making is kinda working for Marvel, i don't want every film blockbuster around to be like that too, i mean, you have tv for those long running stories. Star Wars and Avatar are films that do come to mind when it comes to one-shot stories that were able to spawn more afterwards (Avatar still technically hasn't gotten its sequels yet, but they're a probability and Cameron seems to have a lot of ideas), Episode IV does seem like a single part of a bigger picture now, but when you look at it in the prespective of the 70s, it was very conclsive, i mean, the Empire's biggest weapon was destroyed and the Rebel alliance celebrates, only the following films revealed that this was just a small victory for them. Darth Vader himself was shot by the Millenium Falcon, if i had seen it back then i would probably have come under the impression that he was killed.

Back to topic, i have yet to watch Dracula Untold, this strategy seems like it's going to give some bad films that will most likely become guilty pleasures of mine (like Van Helsing). As for how i think the return of Universal Horror should go like, i think that like Golden Age Pixar, they should try making the best films they can without planning to continue their stories, but imply that it's all set in the same universe.

Here's what i think they should to with each one of their franchises:
-Phantom of the Opera: Go back to the original movie and book, hire somebody talented and passionate to do a thriller for this story. Could even have some tributes to the Silent movie, but should also be its oun beast.
-Frankenstein: Hire Del Toro, that's his passion project, discuss with him all the schedules, if he's only available in 2020, then lock him in that date already, in the meantime you can develop other properties.
-Creature of the Black Lagoon: Victorian era creature, make it interesting.
-The Mummy: I think they should divide this one in two different films, both set in the same universe of course, but completely different stories without any other connection besides being set in this crazy universe and dealing with a resurrected mummy. One Mummy film would be an adventure rollercoaster like the Frasier films, but hopefuly with better writting and Direction, while the other would be a Horror Gothic thriller like many are suggesting, but would get a lower budget.
-The Wolfman: Do another remake of the 1941 classic, take what worked in the last film, and try delivering something smarter.
-Van Helsing: Film dealing with an younger Van Helsing, could deal with anything ranging from Demons to Vampires, would be an interesting way to expand upon the Universal Horror universe from a more active point of view, would also allow to use the character as an action hero, while still not interfering with the Dracula story, since this would technicaly be a prequel to that.
-Dracula: Go back to the original novel and Bella Lugosi's version, spend as many years as you need to get this right.

There are many other Universal Horror film you could probably get a good remake of, and the brand could also include some new and fresh ideas too, like films that aren't remakes or reboots of past material, but are still set in this universe and expand upon it.

You do realize that Dracula Untold started as a separate entity that was well into development before they incorporated it into the Monsters Universe, right? It's quality isn't reflective of the rest of the universe, as it wasn't written by the team Universal hired and only later worked in as a prequel to everything else.
 
You do realize that Dracula Untold started as a separate entity that was well into development before they incorporated it into the Monsters Universe, right? It's quality isn't reflective of the rest of the universe, as it wasn't written by the team Universal hired and only later worked in as a prequel to everything else.

Yeah i do know that, though my post didn't realy take that into account, i remember some posters that had already read the script before mentioning various plot points. However, i do think the quality of the rest of the universe won't be very high considering the minds that are behind them, the only project i think has any hope of being realy good is Frankenstein because Universal wants Del Toro, and that film is one of Del Toro's passion projects.
 
Well they've got the writer of Fargo on board, which was amazing television and the writer of Prisoners is attached to Wolf Man, so that's another feather in their cap, and then of course there's Del Toro and Frankenstein. Really, outside of Kurtzman's Mummy, I'd say we've got some great writers on board to spearhead the thing.
 
I agree with what Gunn is saying. He's pegged it pretty well.

It's also because these stories aren't realy scary anymore, or in least it's very difficult to make them scary nowadays without having a lot of gore, also, successful horror films make less money than successful action films, which means you would need to have cheaper special effects.

Well they can be scary as long as you understand their horror has little to do with gross out scenes and jump scares. Their horror is more philosophical in nature. That's what Shelley, Stoker, Stevenson, etc. were getting at with their original stories. The implications of a guy who extends his life by taking life from others; the implication of being able to split the good and evil natures of a human being from each other; the implication of playing at being a god and creating life and all the horrific consequences that follow from these suppositions. That requires an audience that is in tune with such things and frankly I don't think your average modern horror viewer is used to thinking deeper about this genre. So it'd take a helluva smart filmmaker to recapture what has been lost over the last 40 years.

Why can' the Mummy be a psychological thriller?

They should just adapt the Anne Rice book. It deals with the horror of the idea of true immortality(as in no way to die under ANY circumstances...ever) and how truly horrifying that would be and how it could drive people insane.
 
Last edited:
Well said kedrell! Your definition of horror is spot on and this has mainly been lost for the last forty years as you say.

I would like to see a film adaptation of Elizabeth Kostova's The Historian. This would make a great addition to the Drakulya stories.
 
Well they can be scary as long as you understand their horror has little to do with gross out scenes and jump scares. Their horror is more philosophical in nature. That's what Shelley, Stoker, Stevenson, etc. were getting at with their original stories. The implications of a guy who extends his life by taking life from others; the implication of being able to split the good and evil natures of a human being from each other; the implication of playing at being a god and creating life and all the horrific consequences that follow from these suppositions. That requires an audience that is in tune with such things and frankly I don't think your average modern horror viewer is used to thinking deeper about this genre. So it'd take a helluva smart filmmaker to recapture what has been lost over the last 40 years.

I know what horror deals with, bu i have honestly lost any hope of Hollywood filmmakers getting that or being able to do something this different from what has become of the norm. Even the best horror film lately had to be original properties in order for their Directors to have more freedom to do whatever they wanted (The Conjuring, and yeah, i know it's based on a real case).

I actualy would have like to know what old filmmakers such as Fritz Lang and Kubryck would have done in a world where you can pretty much do anything on-screen.
 
I agree, horror today is the laziest, most lowest common denominator genre in film that there is for the most part. And that's kind of sad given the heights of the classic stories of the past. Largely, I blame the slasher sub-genre. But I think eventually a renaissance/resurgence could happen. I just hope we don't have to wait another 40 years for it.
 
I don't think that will happen anytime soon, but to be fair, every year there's in least 1 horror film that's able to be realy good, the rate of good horror films is starting to increase year by year, but unfortunately, there's always a horror film that gets sequels and spin-offs that are just trash.
 
It takes a lot more to scare people nowadays. It's about grossing you out more than anything. And everything is a jump scare or someone being possessed by Satan and ****. No more monsters.
 
Ghosts and supernatural beings will always be scary, if done right. Blair Witch Project, The Changeling, The Visitors (Swedish horror movie), Poltergeist blablabla.

I think it's possible to make monsters "scary" again. The Wolf Man could have been a suspenseful movie, but the gore ruined it. A faithful version of Dracula could be pretty chilling as well...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"