Universal Monsters

[Sawyer]

They almost did this with the Wolfman in 2010.

That movie had the right look, design, and make-up. The problem was the script sucked, so the movie didn't work.

My hope is that they have learned their lesson and can execute that again. Then again Showtime's Penny Dreadful is kind of already doing this in a way.

My main concern is that the monsters will become heroes (see the bland looking Dracula Untold trailer) and that is a bad idea. Also, Kurtzman is not a name I associate with quality.

Eh. He's 50/50 in that regard, IMO.

 

[Lord]

I would love to see the Wolfman kept in continuity, but chances are, they're prolly gonna be reboot it.

I actualy hope not, good concept but terrible execution.

Hmm. I'm not sure if I'd want the team up to be a modern day movie, that could be cool though. 2004's Van Helsing was set in 1880, that's a good era for a team up film.
IDK if 2010's The Wolfman is connected, but it should be, and if it is, it was set in 1891.

Maybe this could be the lineup
The Wolfman
Dracula Untold
The Mummy
Frankenstein
Van Helsing
Dracula

I hate to break it to you, but they said the Van Helsing and Mummy reboots were going to be set in modern times, otherwise it would have actualy been easier to just use the O'Connells from that film series, as they were already known to the public. By the way, considering we keep hearing about a Frankenstein's Bride remake, i'm willing to believe that they're going to do that one, mixing it with the original, instead of doing just another adaptation of the novel.

After The Mummy, Van Helsing seems to be the closest project to completion, it's basicaly being written at the same time by the exact same person. The question is, should Van Helsing go straight to fighting the big 3 monsters or should it be a more action oriented retelling of Dracula?

I think this is a tricky idea. Maybe even a bad idea.

If they treat these characters as "heroes" or protagonists, we obviously won't be afraid of them, which defeats the purpose of them being classic Horror characters.

If they treat them purely as HORROR icons and keep them as villains/antagonists, it would seem rather cheesy/silly to make them all team up to create a Super-Bad-Guy team that terrorizes people.

There isn't an audience for this. The group that wants to see Horror movies wants to see Saw/Paranormal Activity/The Conjuring, and won't be interested in Evil-Doers in make-up who create a Super Team, and the group who wants to see Superheroes will just want to see Superheroes, not Frankenstein's Monster.

BUT, if we're talking about a children's franchise, maybe CGI, who cares. Go for it.

The Mummy Trilogy and Van Helsing made a good ammount of money, if they want with that style of being both pulpy and gothic along with a more action oriented route than was done in the 40s, i could see them succeeding at their plans, i don't think they'll do Avengers, or even Captain America 2 numbers, but it could be a fun side-franchise for the studio, as long as they don't waste more money than necessary, like they did with Van Helsing in 2004, and are probably going to end up having done with Dracula Untold

EDIT: I feel its about time Monster movies made a comeback. Most horror movies nowadays are becoming so repetitive. I think it would be best if they painted everyone in the "grey". This would distinguish themselves from the Superhero universes that are being made right now. Audiences have rooted for "grey/bad guys before.

Not sure they should target the Horror film crowd, when a film of the genre is realy good it still doesn't make as much as other more mainstream franchises, The Conjuring is a testament to that, it was very popular, but 300 million was what it did, these films have a budget of around 100 million each, that's what a mainstream horror film seems to be making on average.

So, it would probably better for them to go to the crowd that liked The Mummy and Van Helsing films, the people are are looking for entertaining high budgeted films, but they can now offer more serious films than before.

If there's one thing the old Van Helsing film did right, it was the look, it had a very Gothic feel to it, what they now need is a better plot and a better Director (though i never found Stephen Sommers to be that bad, i think he had more personality than the likes of Ratner).

I agree, but most of the time with grey/anti-hero characters, they don't really get too successful or take the world by storm. You have Blade, Punisher, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Hellboy (anything with "devil" or "hell" or "punish" or "ghost" in the name, lol), and those are the characters who are mostly off the radar lately. Constantine has been reduced to television. So has Daredevil. Remember League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? Didn't think so.

The only REAL exception is Batman, and that's because they distinctly said upfront that 1) He's just a human being, 2) He vows never to kill anyone, and 3) He's a Christ-like figure here to save the city. Americans gobble up #3 like Skittles. Wolverine's last solo movie didn't really shatter records, and his solo movie before that is largely regarded as a complete disaster. Put him in the X-Men GROUP movies, and he's fine.

People want heroes, and they want to be TOLD "This is a hero. Root for him." You can't do this with Dracula. You either make it a genuine Horror movie where the teenagers are running away from Dracula afraid for their lives, or don't bother. Don't do this wishy-washy stuff where Frankenstein is suddenly the Hulk-Smash character, and Wolf-Man is a sarcastic guy with one-liners and sunglasses.

Look at I, Frankenstein. That's the golden example of how NOT to do this.

I disagree, problem nowadays is that many don't seem to be giving enough heroes, you don't need to make all of these monsters heroes, you can still root for them though, Dracula Untold seems to be giving the story of the descent into villainy, that's an interesting story to tell, you don't need everyone to be goody good.

I, Frankenstein didn't suck because they made him the hero, the story of what happens to him after the original novel does have potential, he was never truly evil, what he did to his creator was awful, but you could still sympathise a bit with both sides.

But then they weren't realy interested in telling that story, they went with something that had nothing to do with Frankenstein at all, i mean, he's dragged into a war between holy gargoyles and Demons? Are you serious? That seems like the idea of the lowest of the fan fictions.

And having the monsters doesn't mean they'll always be the heroes, Dracula's the protagonist in Dracula Untold, but i don't think he'll be in the same spot in the Van Helsing movie.

They almost did this with the Wolfman in 2010.

That movie had the right look, design, and make-up. The problem was the script sucked, so the movie didn't work.

My hope is that they have learned their lesson and can execute that again. Then again Showtime's Penny Dreadful is kind of already doing this in a way.

My main concern is that the monsters will become heroes (see the bland looking Dracula Untold trailer) and that is a bad idea. Also, Kurtzman is not a name I associate with quality.

The effect in Wolfman may have been good, but that design itself doesn't work very well nowadays for a werewolf, i know many will disagree, but like other people i know said, he looks more like a giant rat. Some on the net even like to make fun of Twilight's idea of a werewolf, but frankly, they had the right design, it's a man who turn into a wolf, simple as that. If you want to go with a more humanoid look, i suggest the one in 2004's Van Helsing, they were perfect, only needed better CGI (though it was actualy still better than the one seen in many films nowadays that are made a decade later).

What these films need is a strong craftsman that knows how to make a good movie, but is also a big fan of the old movies, Guillermo Del Toro is the only one that comes to mind, and interestingly enough, he was set for the Frankenstein movie, and was the one that had interest in a Van Helsing film when it was first announced.

In fact, i'm getting tired of these Hollywood announcements, first they say some guy is going to relaunch a certain franchise, then a year later they say something else about said franchise facing a relaunch with another person set to brainstorm it, as if the previous announcement had never happened at all.

http://www.pajiba.com/trade_news/exclusive-guillermo-del-toro-tackles-van-helsing-no-its-not-a-remake.php

In the articles after this one, they never even mention Del Toro's name, a similar thing happened when Shane Black was announced for a new Predator film, then some week after that, Rodriguez said he was going to make a Predators Sequel, it takes away some of my excitement when each time they talk about a project, they ignore completely what they had previously said and contradict the past announcement.

Based on what has been said, my guess is that most of these will take place in Modern Days, with the obvious exception of Dracula Untold, so here's how i would like to see the line go based on what they've said so far:

Prelude:

2014 - Dracula Untold

First Line:

2016 - The Mummy
2017 - Van Helsing (Based on both the original Dracula film as well as the 2004 VH movie, having Dracula as the main villain, as well as introduce elements from the other monsters, like the introduction of the Werewolf concept, without actualy putting the other characters in here).
2018 - The Bride of Frankenstein/ The Wolfman (Werewolf?)
2019 - The Mummy Sequel
2020 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman (???)

I doubt they will start doing more than one in the line every year, but i think they should slowly merge the franchises, but not go on an all out monster crossover in a single go. As for the VH sequel, may i propose Van Helsing: Kingdom of the Invisible Man? I know it sounds kinda corny, but i remember having this idea since the original film came out.

After the obvious monsters, they should try using other stories in order to maintain the line fresh, like the long overdue Creature of the Black Lagoon remake and a possible return to scarier films (probably with a lower budget too) like The Cat and the Canary, as well as The Man Who Laughs.

 

[Evil Twin]

A large part of the appeal of the Universal Monsters isn't something that you can duplicate merely through teaming them up.

First off, the Universal movies weren't merely Gothic, they were Expressionistic and that's a style of filmmaking, with the exception of Tim Burton and GDT, that swims against popular trends where "realism" and "naturalism" seem to dominate. Plus they were all black and white. Hammer's style and Lewton's style translate more readily to modern audiences. The Universal Monsters also have iconic looks. In general, you're already at a disadvantage trying to find modern, color equivalents.

Second, Karloff was a terrific actor and you just can't throw anyone in some facepaint and neck bolts and expect a similar result. Karloff also benefitted to having training in silent acting and pantomime which worked well with the character he was playing. Lugosi has also been parodied so many times that the natural instinct is to do something different, but it also takes away from the iconography you're trying to emulate.

There's a real risk, in any remake, of running into a slightly different version of the uncanny valley where these icons just don't look right. Given the strong visual identity of the classic films, it's a tough nut to crack.

I wish them luck, but you need a real vision to replicate the Universal films in this day and age. Nobody's really come close.

 

[DACrowe]

I actually am all for them bringing expressionism and the oddness of it all back. Tim Burton' Sweeney Todd always struck me as a Universal horror movie except with singing and gore. Take away those elements, and it plays like a Tod Browning flick.

I think you can go broad on Dracula and make it work in a modern sense. No one would accuse Gary Oldman of underplaying the vampire, but his interpretation was very fun and memorable in its own right. While they ditched the Lugosi cape, which everyone uses, he laid the accent on thick and used lines that were originated from the 1931 film like "And I never drink wine."

I'm not saying that he need to have a giant wig of hair that resembles a heart, but there is plenty of room to embrace the iconography of Dracula without it turning into--sigh--whatever Dracula Untold is becoming.

On an unrelated note, I actually think rolling in the Wolfman (2010) would be quite easy. Make Hugo Weaving the Wolfman. Yes, he's not Lawrence Talbot, but I can't see them doing the story again in a few years, even if they do it better in 2010. And Weaving, unlike Del Toro, could probably make a very sympathetic lead protagonist presence.

I doubt they will roll that in, but I am sure Weaving would be game, and it would be interesting.

 

[DACrowe]

The effect in Wolfman may have been good, but that design itself doesn't work very well nowadays for a werewolf, i know many will disagree, but like other people i know said, he looks more like a giant rat. Some on the net even like to make fun of Twilight's idea of a werewolf, but frankly, they had the right design, it's a man who turn into a wolf, simple as that. If you want to go with a more humanoid look, i suggest the one in 2004's Van Helsing, they were perfect, only needed better CGI (though it was actualy still better than the one seen in many films nowadays that are made a decade later).

The Twilight an Van Helsing designs? Two of they most boring werewolves ever produced by Hollywood?! Thank you, no.

I understand that Rick Baker's design wasn't for everyone but it won an Oscar for a reason. But I hate, hate, hate CGI werewolves. Not one has ever looked good, and I doubt one ever will. You can have your more hellhound werewolves that are on all four--check out Rick Baker's other werewolf design, the also Oscar winning An American Werewolf in London--or something that is more caught in the middle of the two, such as The Howling or even the werewolves in the first two Underworld movies.

But I'll take the werewolf design in Penny Dreadful, which is barely wolfish at all (inspired by the 1935 Werewolf of London) over the bloody awful look of Twilight and Van Helsing's unimaginative dreck.

Of course, the "problem" (if you see it as such) with adapting Universal's iconic Wolf Man design is that he has to be bipedal and in his clothes. Otherwise he is not the Wolf Man.

I honestly believe a lot of people don't know what they want until they get it. If you make a good werewolf movie, that design will work. Wolf with Jack Nicholson was a hit because people didn't care about the design since they liked the movie and Jack in it. Same goes with Penny Dreadful at the moment..

What these films need is a strong craftsman that knows how to make a good movie, but is also a big fan of the old movies, Guillermo Del Toro is the only one that comes to mind, and interestingly enough, he was set for the Frankenstein movie, and was the one that had interest in a Van Helsing film when it was first announced.

In fact, i'm getting tired of these Hollywood announcements, first they say some guy is going to relaunch a certain franchise, then a year later they say something else about said franchise facing a relaunch with another person set to brainstorm it, as if the previous announcement had never happened at all.

http://www.pajiba.com/trade_news/exclusive-guillermo-del-toro-tackles-van-helsing-no-its-not-a-remake.php

In the articles after this one, they never even mention Del Toro's name, a similar thing happened when Shane Black was announced for a new Predator film, then some week after that, Rodriguez said he was going to make a Predators Sequel, it takes away some of my excitement when each time they talk about a project, they ignore completely what they had previously said and contradict the past announcement.

This I agree with. It is a lack of originality in Hollywood as every studio raids their vaults to find a "brand" that they can "Avengers." With that side, the concept of bringing back the classic Universal monsters actually appeals to me. Assuming that it is done well, of course.

 

[Lord]

The Twilight an Van Helsing designs? Two of they most boring werewolves ever produced by Hollywood?! Thank you, no.

I understand that Rick Baker's design wasn't for everyone but it won an Oscar for a reason. But I hate, hate, hate CGI werewolves. Not one has ever looked good, and I doubt one ever will. You can have your more hellhound werewolves that are on all four--check out Rick Baker's other werewolf design, the also Oscar winning An American Werewolf in London--or something that is more caught in the middle of the two, such as The Howling or even the werewolves in the first two Underworld movies.

But I'll take the werewolf design in Penny Dreadful, which is barely wolfish at all (inspired by the 1935 Werewolf of London) over the bloody awful look of Twilight and Van Helsing's unimaginative dreck.

Of course, the "problem" (if you see it as such) with adapting Universal's iconic Wolf Man design is that he has to be bipedal and in his clothes. Otherwise he is not the Wolf Man.

I honestly believe a lot of people don't know what they want until they get it. If you make a good werewolf movie, that design will work. Wolf with Jack Nicholson was a hit because people didn't care about the design since they liked the movie and Jack in it. Same goes with Penny Dreadful at the moment..

The Wolf-man got an oscar for makeup because that aspect was very well done, doesn't mean the design itself was all that good, as i said, it looks more like a human rat than a human wolf, and i say this as someone who loves the Universal Horror films.

When i was talking about Twilight, i meant that there real wasn't anything wrong with their designs of the werewolfs, not that i would like to see them used for the wolf-man in universal horrow. Van Helsing's was good, all it needed was to not be so heavily CGIed.

 

[Orb]

Just thought this should be posted here too.

Universal wants Del Toro to do Frankenstein

http://collider.com/frankenstein-guillermo-del-toro/

 

[jmc]

A large part of the appeal of the Universal Monsters isn't something that you can duplicate merely through teaming them up.

First off, the Universal movies weren't merely Gothic, they were Expressionistic and that's a style of filmmaking, with the exception of Tim Burton and GDT, that swims against popular trends where "realism" and "naturalism" seem to dominate. Plus they were all black and white. Hammer's style and Lewton's style translate more readily to modern audiences. The Universal Monsters also have iconic looks. In general, you're already at a disadvantage trying to find modern, color equivalents.

Second, Karloff was a terrific actor and you just can't throw anyone in some facepaint and neck bolts and expect a similar result. Karloff also benefitted to having training in silent acting and pantomime which worked well with the character he was playing. Lugosi has also been parodied so many times that the natural instinct is to do something different, but it also takes away from the iconography you're trying to emulate.

There's a real risk, in any remake, of running into a slightly different version of the uncanny valley where these icons just don't look right. Given the strong visual identity of the classic films, it's a tough nut to crack.

I wish them luck, but you need a real vision to replicate the Universal films in this day and age. Nobody's really come close.

I think the thing to remember is any remake of the concept is really only ever going to be taking the branding of 'Universal Monsters', I find it very unlikely they would try to replicate the movies in a modern setting. Universe building is a thing now and if any studio has the right to claim its place within that trend it's Universal given they were really the first studio to do cross over films.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

I hate the idea of Van Helsing as the ultimate monster hunter.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Yeah, I'd rather Van Helsing be more of a scholar/ authority on the supernatural rather than a hunter. Or at least a retired hunter.

 

[Doctor Jones]

The Twilight an Van Helsing designs? Two of they most boring werewolves ever produced by Hollywood?! Thank you, no.

I understand that Rick Baker's design wasn't for everyone but it won an Oscar for a reason. But I hate, hate, hate CGI werewolves. Not one has ever looked good, and I doubt one ever will. You can have your more hellhound werewolves that are on all four--check out Rick Baker's other werewolf design, the also Oscar winning An American Werewolf in London--or something that is more caught in the middle of the two, such as The Howling or even the werewolves in the first two Underworld movies.

But I'll take the werewolf design in Penny Dreadful, which is barely wolfish at all (inspired by the 1935 Werewolf of London) over the bloody awful look of Twilight and Van Helsing's unimaginative dreck.

Of course, the "problem" (if you see it as such) with adapting Universal's iconic Wolf Man design is that he has to be bipedal and in his clothes. Otherwise he is not the Wolf Man.

I honestly believe a lot of people don't know what they want until they get it. If you make a good werewolf movie, that design will work. Wolf with Jack Nicholson was a hit because people didn't care about the design since they liked the movie and Jack in it. Same goes with Penny Dreadful at the moment..



This I agree with. It is a lack of originality in Hollywood as every studio raids their vaults to find a "brand" that they can "Avengers." With that side, the concept of bringing back the classic Universal monsters actually appeals to me. Assuming that it is done well, of course.

I liked the Van Helsing werewolf. Pretty cool design all around. It fit the stylized action oriented tone of the film. Which I also still enjoy the ever loving **** out of.

And with regards to Van Helsing, what is partly appealing about the character is his age. The fact he is this older academic yet is an expert on vampirism is actually pretty badass in its own way.

 

[Rorschach2012]

holy ****ing **** if they can get Guillermo Del Toro's Frankenstein, that'd be amazing

 

[Aztec]

I'm all for the Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe...or as it will henceforth be known....the UMCU. These are classic monsters, works of literature, movies, and characters. Connecting them all together, as they have been many times in their history, should be an enjoyable adventure. Provided of course that they are done properly.

Also I'd love for Del Toro to take on Frankenstein and/or The Bride of Frankenstein. Perhaps Van Helsing can be The Avengers of the series that ties them all together? After these monsters have run amok he has to track them down?

I think Dracula Untold looks pretty good so far, and I assure you that Universal will now connect it to their growing shared universe. And reports and the press release seem to indicate that they are doing so.

Here's my UMCU Phase One:
Dracula Untold
The Mummy
The Wolfman
The Creature from the Black Lagoon
Frankenstein (with the Bride*)
Dracula
Van Helsing

How epic of a monster mash would that be?

*GDT already expressed interest in including the Bride in his Frankenstein take. Besides it can even work within the context of the original novel where the female creature was all but created (as the Branagh version demonstrated you can go one step further and bring her to life in some capacity as well).

 

[cryptic name]

Just thought this should be posted here too.

Universal wants Del Toro to do Frankenstein

http://collider.com/frankenstein-guillermo-del-toro/

In a perfect world, Del Toro would not only get to make these Frankenstein films, but be the Joss Whedon of Universal's Monster Universe.

 

[jmc]

I'm all for the Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe...or as it will henceforth be known....the UMCU. These are classic monsters, works of literature, movies, and characters. Connecting them all together, as they have been many times in their history, should be an enjoyable adventure. Provided of course that they are done properly.

Also I'd love for Del Toro to take on Frankenstein and/or The Bride of Frankenstein. Perhaps Van Helsing can be The Avengers of the series that ties them all together? After these monsters have run amok he has to track them down?

I think Dracula Untold looks pretty good so far, and I assure you that Universal will now connect it to their growing shared universe. And reports and the press release seem to indicate that they are doing so.

Here's my UMCU Phase One:
Dracula Untold
The Mummy
The Wolfman
The Creature from the Black Lagoon
Frankenstein (with the Bride*)
Dracula
Van Helsing

How epic of a monster mash would that be?

*GDT already expressed interest in including the Bride in his Frankenstein take. Besides it can even work within the context of the original novel where the female creature was all but created (as the Branagh version demonstrated you can go one step further and bring her to life in some capacity as well).

'Universal Monsters' just sounds better to be honest, it feels a bit too lengthy adding 'Cinematic Universe' after it.

 

[Gabe99]

Collider:
Alex Kurtzman Gives Updates on AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 3, SINISTER SIX, and VENOM; Talks Universal Monster Universe Plans

On the cinematic side, what’s front and center on your plate, right now?

KURTZMAN: Front and center right now is Chris Morgan and I working on getting The Mummy off the ground and building up our Monster Universe. That’s where I’m spending my time. And working with Drew Goddard on Sinister Six.

Guillermo del Toro has always loved Frankenstein. Would you want to get him involved, in some way?

KURTZMAN: Nothing would make us happier. We’re only at the beginning exploratory phase of all of it, but I’m a crazy huge Guillermo del Toro fan. So, anything he wants to be involved in, we’d be honored.

What is your big picture view of the Monster Universe that you’re working on?

KURTZMAN: I think it’s incredibly important to all of us to start focusing on each movie, and make each movie great, rather than thinking, “Okay, we want to do The Avengers next.” If that comes along, it will come along organically. When I was a kid, going to Universal Studios, which was all I wanted to do, all the time, there was a show that was all the monsters, and I loved that show. I was obsessed with Dracula. I was obsessed with Frankenstein. I was obsessed with the Wolfman. This guy used to get stretched on a rack, live and in front of the audience. It was so cool. It’s very exciting. It’s like being a kid in a candy store, getting to play with all those things again, at the very studio that birthed these monsters, in the first place. Most importantly, we’re really wanting to just do each one right. I think the world will come to us, if we build them correctly.

Is there a lesser one in the monster pantheon that you’re hoping to make an A-lister?

KURTZMAN: Some monsters will get their own movie. Other monsters will appear in other movies, as secondary characters. The balance of that is what we’re working out right now.

 

[Lord]

I think it’s incredibly important to all of us to start focusing on each movie, and make each movie great, rather than thinking, “Okay, we want to do The Avengers next.” If that comes along, it will come along organically.

I hope that he didn't say something similar when Amazing Spider-Man 2 was coming out, because i realy want them to do what he's saying, Universal Monsters shouldn't try to turn into the MCU, we may get a crossover now and then, but each film should feel like its oun big chapter. Van Helsing seems to be coming out after the Mummy, i wonder if that one will be a monster match or if they're interested in making it a sort of retelling to the original Bram Stoker's Dracula tale, but with other monster elements in the mix.

By the way, anyone wants to discuss the Mummy reboot? I was actualy a fan of the Frasier films, they were quite fun, expecialy the first one. Now, will the new ones be action adventures too or just horror films? Considering their intent to launch a Universal Horror universe, making it straight horror's probably not their intentions, expecialy when you have an action film screenwriter like Kurtzman.

I do hope that they keep the atmosphere of those movies, but what will they realy do in this movie? Should they go with Imhotep again or try Kharis?

 

[Breogan]

So will this all lead to Walter(not so Fury) putting together the Monster Squad!?

So Groovie!

 

[Evil Twin]

I think the thing to remember is any remake of the concept is really only ever going to be taking the branding of 'Universal Monsters', I find it very unlikely they would try to replicate the movies in a modern setting. Universe building is a thing now and if any studio has the right to claim its place within that trend it's Universal given they were really the first studio to do cross over films.

I think Universal needs to have some common features to tie the new films to the classics so as to distinguish themselves from Hammer and everyone else that's done a take on the characters. We can define the Universal Monsters fairly well.

What those common features are, I don't know, but I think they need to acknowledge their legacy in some way. Maybe it's as simple as "Henry Frankenstein" instead of "Victor Frankenstein". Maybe Dracula wears a costume like Lugosi's. But, if this is a brand, they have to distinguish it as part of the legacy. That's less problematic for The Mummy and The Wolf Man as they own those stories totally, but they have competitors for Dracula and Frankenstein.

 

[Visceral]

Van Helsing, and Rick O Connell team up go

 

[Blue Moon]

So if they made Dracula Untold with the knowledge that they would be universe building, there could be some cool nods and references that might add some flavor to what appears to be a not so great movie. Otherwise, this upcoming film may end up out of continuity with the upcoming reboots of the Mummy & Van Helsing being the 'phase 1' of sorts.

With Kurtzman's comments about focusing on the individual films first and other monster characters in supporting roles, i think the best examples for what the 'team-up' film would entail would be House of Frankenstein (1944) & House of Dracula (1945). So phase 1 could look like this:

• Dracula Untold (2014) (set in 15th century)
• The Mummy (2016?) (modern day setting with new characters)
• Van Helsing (2016?) (modern day with Dracula as the villain)
• The Invisible Man (2017) (modern day w/ Van Helsing as investigator)
• The Wolfman v Frankenstein (2018) (set in the late 19th century)
• House of Frankenstein (2018) (modern day)

The first 4 are 'origin' movies while the 5th would be a reboot of the original film, with the exception of adding Wolfman's origin to the beginning. So House of Frankenstein would see a vengeful Invisible Man break out of prison, enlist the aid of Quasimodo the Hunchback for revenge on Van Helsing. They move to Castle Frankenstein and find the monster & wolfman frozen from the events of Wolfman v Frank. The film would proceed like the original, only without the Dracula subplot and the Invisible Man dying at the end. Phase 2 would look like this:

• The Mummy's Tomb (2019) (sequel to the Mummy w/Van Helsing)
• Brides of Dracula (2019) (protagonists from Mummy run into Dracula)
• The Phantom of the Opera (2020) (modern origin w/Van Helsing)
• The Curious Case of Dr.Jekyll & Mr.Hyde (2021) (origin)
• The Creature from the Black Lagoon (2021) (origin)
• House of Dracula (2022) (direct sequel to House of Frankenstein, Brides of Dracula, Dr.Jekyll)

The first two are sequels to their respective franchises but with swapped protagonists. The next 3 are originals with various nods and references to the events of the previous films. At the end of Brides of Dracula, Dracula sends his surviving bride to spy on Dr.Jekyll. House of Dracula begins a year or two after Dr.Jekyll/Mr.Hyde. Van Helsing is looking for Mr. Hyde to pay for his crimes. Dracula & Wolfman come to Jekyll for a cure of their diseases. The movie proceeds as in the original except the Dracula subplot from H.of.Frank is added; Van Helsing kills Dracula and shoots Mr. Hyde, The Wolfman is cured and Frankenstein's monster survives. The trick is that Tomb of Mummy, Brides of Dracula and Dr.Jekyll/Hyde take place at the same time, while Creature, House of Dracula also take place at the same time but after the others. Phantom of the Opera would chronologically take place last and is essentially a standalone film.

I'm out of good ideas for phase three but it would be all sequels:

• Bride of Frankenstein (2023)
• Son of Dracula (2023)
• The Mummy's Curse (2024)
• Return to the Black Lagoon (2025)
• House of Horror (2025)

That's 17 films in 11 years, maybe a little too much for Universal to budget right, but I think it can be done. Anyway, yeah, this is what i more or less expect to see.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

I'd love a new take on the universal monsters but we also need to include the creature and the bride.


Sadly it seems that Dracula untold looks terrible, seriously it's getting the maleficent treatment where we have to believe that the great villain is really just a misunderstood soul

**** that just give me some badass evil monsters, and end with a modern team with them as villains under draculas control

Actually sod it I'm away to watch the monster squad

 

[Rorschach2012]

it'd be awesome if they got Gary Oldman back as Drac

 

[Boom]

Dracula Untold doesn't exactly look like a great kick-starter for this plan. That movie has "bomb" written all over it from what I can tell.

Give me this guy:

Spoiler

 

[jmc]

I don't know how you can make Vlad the Impaler look misunderstood. The dude was effing insane in real life.