Universal Monsters

[Aztec]

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

I don't get the impression he's supposed to be "misunderstood" in this film. The trailer describes him as a "monster" and portrays him as someone who seeks out an evil vampire/monster/demon to win his battles. I don't see a misunderstood angle from that trailer.

I am cautiously optimistic about this film. It's a story that's never been told and it could conceivably be an excellent backstory to their blossoming UMCU.

 

[DACrowe]

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

I think the Coppola take was a clever one until the halfway mark of that movie. He was always a monster, but he "did it for Christ" or at least what the Church told him to do. When he feels he was betrayed, he takes his anger out on the Church and God, and ultimately he damns himself in a very visual way by stabbing a crucifix and drinking the blood that comes out.

But yes, Dracula Untold appears to attempt the Maleficent treatment. Which is kind of why the Coppola movie fell apart in the middle, when they tried to make him a romantic anti-hero in between scenes of him brutalizing Mina's best friend and turning into a giant pile of rats. Does not really work.

 

[The Shape]

Here's hoping they decide to include the Phantom of the Opera in this universe and up with a GOOD film for him.

 

[Lord]

Here's hoping they decide to include the Phantom of the Opera in this universe and up with a GOOD film for him.

From the Avatars it's interesting to see when a postr here has a project he/ she would like to see happening, or a personal preference, was actualy wondering what you would think of the past Phantom of the Opera films.

 

[The Shape]

From the Avatars it's interesting to see when a postr here has a project he/ she would like to see happening, or a personal preference, was actualy wondering what you would think of the past Phantom of the Opera films.

I've been an obsessed "phanatic" of Phantom of the Opera since I was a little kid, not only because of the musical version but also the past film adaptation and the original book itself.

The film version of Webber's musical was an opportunity to create one of the best stage-to-screen musical adaptations ever and while it was visually impressive, they missed the mark in a lot of ways. Casting a dude who couldn't sing (Gerard Butler) for one of the most vocally challenging roles that Broadway's ever seen was a huge reason for the film's failure, in my eyes.

Beyond that, though, POTA has long deserved a new, non-musical adaptation of the source material. It has the potential to be dramatic, intense, scary, and also endearingly tragic by its end. The Phantom is a monster in the sense that he's deformed and murderously maniacal, but at his core, he does what he does because of his love and obsession with Christine. So it'd be really interesting to see a dramatic character study on him with lavish set design and effects.

Edit: In terms of past Phantom films, the original 1925 version is the closest to the book and the 1943 version is also solid. Other adaptations have left a lot to be desired, so it's definitely time to see one with modern-day effects and cinematography.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I've always been a fan of POTO myself. And I'm really ready to see a non musical adaptation. The material just has everything one could want out of a movie, such as the things you listed. It could be incredible if it's in the right hands.

Same thing with Creature From the Black Lagoon. I haven't seen the film in years, but I always loved it. And the nice thing about that is that the Creature is more so iconic than the film itself, and the Creature is less iconic than the likes of Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, and The Wolfman. I can't account for the amount of fans of the entire film, as I'm sure there's a good amount. Still, with the right people, they're more free to change things around because people aren't as beholden to the content.

I like Del Toro's idea of making it take place in the late 19th Century. Darwinism has been around so you can play with that too.

Just as long as you capture the dynamic between the Creature and the woman. It's like King Kong, except the different between him and Kong is that Kong is this cute primate who you can sympathize with. The Creature is as ugly as ****. So there's this great opportunity to explore that relationship. Can we empathize with something that looks like that and isn't something that doesn't come from the present world? Added to that, it's still a horror thriller film. It's quite a balance but that's something that's gone unexplored. A film that's Alien and Lovecraftian yet at the heart is a tragic love story. It's kind of sick, but that's why it's so compelling.

 

[jmc]

I saw that god awful Phantom of the Opera movie musical a few years back. 2 and a half hours of my life I'll never get back. :

 

[Gort Baringa]

jmc,

I highly recommend the filmed 25th anniversary stage performance with Ramin Karimloo and Sierra Boggess. Puts the film to shame!

 

[The Shape]

jmc,

I highly recommend the filmed 25th anniversary stage performance with Ramin Karimloo and Sierra Boggess. Puts the film to shame!

If he's not into musicals, don't bother.

But yeah, that was awesome.

 

[Roose Bolton]

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

He was brutal as all hell, but half the stuff said about him was propaganda spread by Mathias Corvinus as a means to excuse himself from not joining Vlad in the crusade against the Ottoman Turks after having spent all of the Pope's loaned gold on various personal expenses rather than the Holy War he had promised to partake in. There is no factual proof that he murdered babies or mulitated young women or anything like that.

In real life the truth was that Vlad Dracula and his younger brother Radu spent much of their adolescence as hostages to the Ottomans, and were often witness to the enormities that Muslim Turks and the Christian Balkans would inflict upon each other, Impalement was itself actually something Sultan Mehmed was fond of using to rowdy Christians within his empire. Given that Vlad was a young Christian himself, seeing all this would have left a pretty strong impression on him. Coupled with all the crap going on in his native Wallachia, the way his father was murdered, the way the Hungarians burnt out his older brother's eyes and buried him alive, the constant backstabbery and corruption of the Wallachian nobility, the extreme poverty and crime rate, I think it's very understandable why he used such brutal methods.

When he came into power the crime in Wallachia plummeted to nonexistence, trade routes were opened and the country's economy boomed. Even his war with the Ottoman Empire and Sultan Mehmed was because he didn't want his nation to be a puppet state of the Turks, nor did he want to pay the annul tribute of gold and hundreds of young boys. His forest of impaled Turks actually managed to terrify the Ottomans in such way that they gave up on trying to invade, despite the fact that they outnumbered the Wallachians 9-1. If you go to Romania today he's very well regarded in much the same way William Wallace is in Scotland, there's statues dedicated to the man.

So, yeah, he was a very brutal figure but in that same token there's more to it than a simple madman terrorizing people.

 

[jmc]

There's actually a really good documentary on him on youtube I watched little while back more or less saying exactly what you've written. For some reason it never dawned on me there was a reason he was called The Impaler until I watched that docu.

 

[Lord]

While it's not how they're launching this, i think that Universal Monsters would be more successful if it went more with quality and delivering the best films they can over crossovers, you can make this all set in the same universe, but don't be afraid of making one-shot stories where the monster may not appear again in later stories, like Phantom of the Opera.

I think that idea would probably atract more Directors, instead of having to be forced into setting their stories for future sequels and crossovers. Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolfman and the Mummy are probably the only ones that would realy be able to get crossovers while still being true to their original stories.

The only real way for this relaunch to be successful is for their movies to be of quality.

 

[The Shape]

Yeah, they shouldn't go too overboard with the crossover idea. But instance, if they're starting this off with a new Mummy film, they can include references to another monster's location or activities and set up future films with Easter Eggs and end-credits stingers.

A good creative team can easily set up a solid, intertwined universe for these guys one way or another without doing silly stuff like "Dracula vs. Frankenstein". I, personally, think it would be smarter for them to start with less obvious choices like the Phantom and the Invisible Man while building the overall universe and then introducing the big guns down the line. They can take sort of the Marvel approach to it, but without necessarily leading to an Avengers-like film.

A true dream of mine would be to see a true Phantom of the Opera series or trilogy. His story doesn't have to end where it does in the original novel, and a good writer can take the character to some really interesting places.

 

[Lord]

Not sure about expanding the Phantom of the Opera story into a trilogy, we have enough of those, and while i don't remember much about it, the original story and early films have the potential of ofering a realy good film with all the technology we have today, in the hands of a truly imaginative Director, this could be a really good film, using mood and visuals to tell a story, modern films like Drive have proven that this is possible, but something rare.

I somewhat agree about using less obvious choices, but i think it would be ideal to start with both, making things like Phantom along the likes of Mummy or Frankenstein, and possibly revisiting some classics like Man who Laughs and Cat & the Canary. Instead of just redoing past projects, it would probably be good to use the brand to introduce new stories, hell, they could even try doing At the Mountains of Madness or other Lovecraft stories inside the brand, alowing them to expand it instead of just redoing their past, Lovecraftian myths would actualy fit well with these other concepts.

If they want to get more mainstream attention, the Mummy and Dracula/ Van Helsing franchises are where they can go more into action oriented spectacle, while some of their other films can be a little experimental, some of those stories even have the potential of getting some award recognition if done right.

 

[The Shape]

Not sure about expanding the Phantom of the Opera story into a trilogy, we have enough of those, and while i don't remember much about it, the original story and early films have the potential of ofering a realy good film with all the technology we have today, in the hands of a truly imaginative Director, this could be a really good film, using mood and visuals to tell a story, modern films like Drive have proven that this is possible, but something rare.

Yup, I truly believe a proper horror/drama POTA adaptation would be able to straddle the line of mainstream box office hit and awards bait.

I somewhat agree about using less obvious choices, but i think it would be ideal to start with both, making things like Phantom along the likes of Mummy or Frankenstein, and possibly revisiting some classics like Man who Laughs and Cat & the Canary. Instead of just redoing past projects, it would probably be good to use the brand to introduce new stories, hell, they could even try doing At the Mountains of Madness or other Lovecraft stories inside the brand, alowing them to expand it instead of just redoing their past, Lovecraftian myths would actualy fit well with these other concepts.

If they want to get more mainstream attention, the Mummy and Dracula/ Van Helsing franchises are where they can go more into action oriented spectacle, while some of their other films can be a little experimental, some of those stories even have the potential of getting some award recognition if done right.

Well, I do think that starting with the less obvious choices and building towards the "big guns" is important because it will give audiences a chance to really anticipate and get excited for the bigger, more prolofic characters...rather than have people go "Great, another Frankenstein movie" or whatever. I mean, we're getting that ****** Dracula Untold movie now, I Frankenstein just came out recently, and even the Mummy franchise isn't that old or completely forgotten just yet.

If they include the right amount of tasteful hints and teases towards their most famous characters in the early films, it will help prepare audiences for what's coming and fuel speculation around the Internet. I want people to be thinking "Oh wow, when they finally get to Dracula, it's going to be awesome. Who will play him?" and things like that.

The thing is, if this universe will be connected, they have to find a way to do so organically and not haphazardly, in a way that makes sense. The best thing about all this is that each of the characters in the Universal Monsters universe are so different from one another and all have different powers, abilities, and stories. This could literally wind up being like the Marvel universe of horror.

 

[Lord]

I'm not completely sure it would be able to gain too much box office appeal, but when a film is realy good and gets Orcar attention, it usualy atracts more money interested to see what the talk is all about.

What you're suggesting does sound interesting, and would echo the original Universal Horror era, which started with a decade of horror films that slowly built their recognition, like Phantom of the Opera, Hunchback, Cat & Canary and Man who Laughs, and then later went into the most popular monsters, before eventualy having the crossovers. I think the ideal would be a mix of what John Logan has been doing with Penny Dreadful, portraying these crossovers realisticaly, along with a more Gothic and expressionism inspired Direction, which is what i believe Guillermo Del Toro wants with Frankenstein.

I doubt this will happen like this though, the people behind these new films, along with the wish to have more mainstream attention suggests that they will try to make these films action oriented. To be honest, Dracula Untold looks cheesy, but the concept isn't all that bad, i doubt we'll see a good final product, but the line "You're alive because of what i did to save you!" suggests a heroic warrior who became a monster, instead of the misunderstood "real hero of the story" idea that Maleficent went with.

Van Helsing 2004 has plenty of problems, but it's a guilty pleasure of mine, i do like an action film featuring these horror elements, i think The Mummy from 1999 did a decent job at mixing the old with an action family entertainment route, i only watched the original, but while it was good, it sometimes felt like a retreat of old monster movies. For the next reboot i would like them to take this a step further and deal a bit more with Egyptian curses. Returning to Van Helsing, one thing i do think they did right were the visuals, not the overuse of CGI, but the look of Transylvania itself, it felt mythic and creepy.

The Woman in Black only cost around 15 million from what i see, for a period piece that's realy not much, some of these films could be made as horror Period Pieces around the budget i believe, instead of spending some 100 million with every project.

The Universal Monsters machine is already in full motion though, unless it fails and they try to redo it a few years down the line, i don't think they'll go with the idea of quality over crossovers.

 

[Aztec]

What you're suggesting does sound interesting, and would echo the original Universal Horror era, which started with a decade of horror films that slowly built their recognition, like Phantom of the Opera, Hunchback, Cat & Canary and Man who Laughs, and then later went into the most popular monsters, before eventualy having the crossovers. I think the ideal would be a mix of what John Logan has been doing with Penny Dreadful, portraying these crossovers realisticaly, along with a more Gothic and expressionism inspired Direction, which is what i believe Guillermo Del Toro wants with Frankenstein.

I doubt this will happen like this though, the people behind these new films, along with the wish to have more mainstream attention suggests that they will try to make these films action oriented.

I'll agree to a certain extent that to build the universe slowly with lesser monsters and then getting to the headliners sense. However, The Mummy and The Creature from the Black Lagoon are really the only two "lesser" characters that would deserve their own movie at this point, IMHO. You do need to catch the audiences attention with some big characters. I like the idea of starting with a huge bang too though, so perhaps Dracula Untold (assuming it pans out) is the perfect way to unofficially kick things off. Especially since the story starts hundreds of years before the shared universe is likely to begin (aside from The Mummy which probably starts 3,000 or so years ago...).

As for the Penny Dreadful example, while I was among the most excited people to hear they were creating a show that combined Dracula, Frankenstein, and Dorian Grey, the show was a total let down. I've never seen a show REFUSE to move the plot along as badly as this show. Every week a sum total of NOTHING happened. The only characters that got screen times were the characters that no one wanted to see. All of the twists and reveals in the final episode were entirely predictable from the pilot (seriously, watch it and see...). Oh, and did I mention that they told the story of Dracula....WITHOUT DRACULA????? End rant...

I also agree with you on the GDT angle. I think he'll bring some class and atmosphere to this venture, so I hope it works out between him and Universal.

At the end of the day these will be big budget, mainstream, popcorn flicks but that's okay because as Marvel, Planet of the Apes, Lord of the Rings, etc. prove that can be done and still be an excellent film. I just hope they don't lose the horror completely.

 

[Steamteck]

If they really are to be set in modern times, my interest is considerably decreased. I'd much rather see them as period pieces. Victorian era would be great.

 

[The Shape]

If they really are to be set in modern times, my interest is considerably decreased. I'd much rather see them as period pieces. Victorian era would be great.

Did they say anything about modern times?

 

[T-Ray]

The Woman in Black only cost around 15 million from what i see, for a period piece that's realy not much, some of these films could be made as horror Period Pieces around the budget i believe, instead of spending some 100 million with every project.

I agree with this. As a great fan of Universal Monsters, I really want this new stuff to finally get off the ground. A lot of UM movies can be made with lesser budget and with good but not known cast. District 9 had smaller budget, but acting, atmosphere and special effects were awesome, for example. They could do a more stylized visuals and hide any lacking effects by that.

Van Helsing 2004 has plenty of problems, but it's a guilty pleasure of mine, i do like an action film featuring these horror elements, i think The Mummy from 1999 did a decent job at mixing the old with an action family entertainment route...

Agree with this as well. Van Helsing was kinda silly movie, but awesome silly movie, and I love it for what it is. Visuals were perfect, instantly recognizable as Universal Monsters aesthetics. Designs of sets and characters were perfect (I especially like how they updated Frankenstein's monster and the look of Dracula's Brides' vampire forms). They went with "rule of cool" and it does seem that the silliness was there because they wanted to make a "love letter" to old UM movies, which are kinda silly for today's horror standards, but there lies their charm.

Best part of it all is that Van Helsing and Mymmy franchise can be viewed as if they are in the same universe, different time periods, different locations, but same universe.

 

[Rorschach2012]

glad to see i'm not the only one that still enjoys the Mummy movies and Van Helsing. I haven't checked out the third Mummy but I think I'd probably like it..

 

[Lord]

I do find it a little weird when people mention Van Helsing having some of the worst special effects around, yet it's been 10 years and there are still films that are released with worse looking CGI. I always found Stephen Sommer a little too hated, i hated his G.I.Joe, but with the universal monsters action films it always looked to me like he had a soul for what he was doing and realy loved the material, even if there were some changes done for the worse, unlike some other modern "Mediocre Directors" such as Ratner or the guy who made the Underworld films.

I think the only real problem with Van Helsing besides the overuse of CGI was the plot, it indeed had a lot of problems, and i can also understand why some would be annoyed by the transformation of Van Helsing into a young non-dutch demon hunter. I wouldn't call it a good movie, far from it, but it had various elements i personaly enjoyed, with a few tweaks it could have been a realy amazing movie.

I don't think there's much to argue about the first Mummy film, i think it was genuinely good, while i did enjoy the second one a bit, i feel like the follow ups could have delivered more. Whenever they reboot the Mummy, i believe it should still be slightly action oriented, it doesn't need to be complete Gothic straight horror like the other Universal Monster films.

Did they say anything about modern times?

Yep

http://www.thewrap.com/universals-mummy-reboot-loses-mama-director-andy-muschetti-exclusive/

Jon Spaihts wrote the current draft of the script, which reimagined “The Mummy” franchise in modern day with new characters not seen in previous iterations and a protagonist imbued with a human personality.

Last i checked, Van Helsing was going to be the same thing too. To be honest the idea has already grown a little on me, but i don't think concepts like Invisible Man or Phantom of the Opera can make the jump to modern times very easily, i can't realy imagine Frankenstein working nowadays, I, Frankenstein even gave a glimpse at how bad that can get. Dracula and the Mummy are the only ones that can realy make the jump due to their abilities and being able to still hide, but the other monsters fit better in the past.

@Aztec The thing with the suggestion to start with lesser known properties is also that most studios usualy take Dracula, Frankenstein or even the Mummy now for granted, so they'll stay as close to formula as they possibly can, but if you start off with smaller projects that are genuinely aiming to be top tier films, then when you get to things such as Dracula, there will be some higher expectations they'll have to live up to.

 

[T-Ray]

glad to see i'm not the only one that still enjoys the Mummy movies and Van Helsing. I haven't checked out the third Mummy but I think I'd probably like it..

The third Mummy is an OK popcorn movie, a little different than previous two, mostly due to change in setting and recast of Rachel Weisz. It is as silly as Mummy Returns, though. You should check it out.

 

[T-Ray]

...I always found Stephen Sommer a little too hated, i hated his G.I.Joe, but with the universal monsters action films it always looked to me like he had a soul for what he was doing and realy loved the material...

CGI was fine in Van Helsing in my opinion, even the less excellent effects weren't that noticeable considering the overall look of the film.
Yup, the script could have been more polished, plot could have been a little better, some plot elements removed, and, maybe, they should have minimized CGI a little bit, but Sommers did a good job on UM movies, he got the tone just right. I wish we got a sequel, just to see what would they do with the Bride of Frankenstein and Gill Man.

Whenever they reboot the Mummy, i believe it should still be slightly action oriented, it doesn't need to be complete Gothic straight horror like the other Universal Monster films.

I think that every UM film should be slightly action/adventure oriented, and not straight horror. Reason is simply because with adventure vibe it is easy to pull the audience into the world of the film and get them stay there for the cool characters. Monsters should be scary, creepy but awesome at the same time, not too silly, a little hammy and certainly not very realistic.

 

[EssayM]

I don't see the problem with starting with lesser-known monsters. The MCU started with Iron Man back when none of the GA had a clue who he was. If you can somehow make them interesting and dynamic characters, I see no reason why the CFTBL or the Mummy or whoever couldn't be the first one after Dracula Untold.

On a more general note, THIS IS AWESOME!!! I've always been dissapointed that stuff like Van Helsing and LXG ended up the way they did, because the idea of an Avengers-scale action/horror film where all the great Universal movie monsters team up to fight evil just sounds like the coolest idea ever. If they can make this new series work, I will be quite the happy camper.