Universal Monsters

Status
Not open for further replies.
“We don’t have any capes [in our film library]. But what we do have is an incredible legacy and history with the monster characters. We’ve tried over the years to make monster movies — unsuccessfully, actually. So, we took a good, hard look at it, and we settled upon an idea, which is to take it out of the horror genre, put it more in the action-adventure genre and make it present day, bringing these incredibly rich and complex characters into present day and reimagine them and reintroduce them to a contemporary audience.”


:lmao:

Good Christ.

I'm out.
 
“We don’t have any capes [in our film library]. But what we do have is an incredible legacy and history with the monster characters. We’ve tried over the years to make monster movies — unsuccessfully, actually. So, we took a good, hard look at it, and we settled upon an idea, which is to take it out of the horror genre, put it more in the action-adventure genre and make it present day, bringing these incredibly rich and complex characters into present day and reimagine them and reintroduce them to a contemporary audience.”


:lmao:


clint-eastwood-snarls.gif


That's quite possibly the worst thing they could say or do to those amazing horror franchises. I'm legitimately pissed off about that.
 
“We don’t have any capes [in our film library]. But what we do have is an incredible legacy and history with the monster characters. We’ve tried over the years to make monster movies — unsuccessfully, actually. So, we took a good, hard look at it, and we settled upon an idea, which is to take it out of the horror genre, put it more in the action-adventure genre and make it present day, bringing these incredibly rich and complex characters into present day and reimagine them and reintroduce them to a contemporary audience.”

Calling it now:
* Dracula will be a wealthy industrialist CEO;
* Frankenstein will be a genetic engineer and the Monster will be the scarred, leather-clad stalker hunting him down;
* The Invisible Man will be a military biologist gone rogue;
* The Mummy will have been masterminding political unrest and upheaval in Egypt in order to gain power;
* The Wolf Man will be a military man returned home from some conflict;
* The Creature from the Black Lagoon is from a species that evolved from an alien microbe carried to Earth ages ago.
Dracula will be the head of the European advanced medical sciences firm which Henry Frankenstein worked for before making off with critical research that suggests he may have found a key to immortality that doesn't require the physical vulnerability of possibly being staked through the heart while you sleep; the U.S. government learns of this and assigns a special biological sciences unit to develop a means of infiltrating Dracula's company and unlocking everything he has pertaining to Frankenstein's work...a unit headed by one Dr. Griffin.
Meanwhile, Lt. Lawrence Talbot becomes a hero after taking part in a Special Ops mission to rescue a relief worker in Dracula's employ, Helen Grosvenor - who's believed by fanatics secretly working for mover-shaker Ardath Bey to be the reincarnation of Ankh-es-en-Amon - but Talbot is cursed for his involvement when, upon his homecoming, he's attacked by a large dog, and his investigation into his developing lycanthropic predicament seems to suggest that Dracula and Bey were in cahoots on some scheme.
While that's going on, reports that Frankenstein's Monster has escaped to the jungles along the Amazon River - due to a series of gruesome killings along the waters that could only be the work of an intelligent creature with superhuman strength and an apparent resistance to conventional weapons - draw the attention of not only corporate spies in Dracula's service but the aforementioned American biological team, now led by Dr. David Reed, and one of the spies infiltrates Reed's expedition down the Amazon to a fabled region called the Black Lagoon.

If that isn't what happens exactly, it'll at least be that bad. If it gets THAT far.
 
Last edited:
So:

- Dr Doom is just a blogger
- Batman is a violent psycho
- There's a fourth Toy Story movie coming out
- The Terminator is a "dad"
- And the Universal Monster movies are going to be action movies now.

Yay!:yay:
 
So:

- Dr Doom is just a blogger
- Batman is a violent psycho
- There's a fourth Toy Story movie coming out
- The Terminator is a "dad"
- And the Universal Monster movies are going to be action movies now.

Yay!:yay:
the future
tg9Zjcn.gif
 
Where did you get that from?

This isn't a thread about Batman vs Superman, but since I mentioned the movie first, I'll answer:

He's going to be "extremely rough. Very, very, very rough" I don't remember who said that, but it's official, from some WB guy. And this Batman is obviously based on Frank Miller's version.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's based on the All-Star Batman. After all, Zack Snyder is turned on by big, screaming guys with swelling muscles, sadism and darkness.

the future
tg9Zjcn.gif

What's next? A remake of Bonanza where the Cartwrights are dangerous outlaws?

Hoss: "Let's murder them damn redskins and take their land, pa!"

Ben: "I agree, son. Adam, Joe...you shoot them in the back while Hoss and I finish them off with our knives."

("Dark and gritty" Bonanza theme)



We shouldn't give them any ideas...:csad:
 
This isn't a thread about Batman vs Superman, but since I mentioned the movie first, I'll answer:

He's going to be "extremely rough. Very, very, very rough" I don't remember who said that, but it's official, from some WB guy. And this Batman is obviously based on Frank Miller's version.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's based on the All-Star Batman. After all, Zack Snyder is turned on by big, screaming guys with swelling muscles, sadism and darkness.
Well, the other stuff you mentioned is obviously starkly different from the original source, but Batman being borderline psychotic has always been a big part of the modern interpretation of the character. Sure Miller took it too far with ASBAR, but that doesn't negate the...10 years or so in the comics where Batman was portrayed that way. Seems out of place compared to the likes of "Domashev".
 
Calling it now:
* Dracula will be a wealthy industrialist CEO;
* Frankenstein will be a genetic engineer and the Monster will be the scarred, leather-clad stalker hunting him down;
* The Invisible Man will be a military biologist gone rogue;
* The Mummy will have been masterminding political unrest and upheaval in Egypt in order to gain power;
* The Wolf Man will be a military man returned home from some conflict;
* The Creature from the Black Lagoon is from a species that evolved from an alien microbe carried to Earth ages ago.

Anyone remember Sci-fi's INVISIBLE MAN series? It was actually pretty good.

-Frankenstein will probably be the HULK but Banner and Hulk split apart.
-Dracula will have some blood disorder that means he needs to drink others blood and gains temporary powers

-The Mummy will probably be some version of Darkman. An archaeologist who ends up with the curse of the Mummy that can be passed on.
 
Well, the other stuff you mentioned is obviously starkly different from the original source, but Batman being borderline psychotic has always been a big part of the modern interpretation of the character. Sure Miller took it too far with ASBAR, but that doesn't negate the...10 years or so in the comics where Batman was portrayed that way. Seems out of place compared to the likes of "Domashev".

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.
 
Anyone remember Sci-fi's INVISIBLE MAN series? It was actually pretty good.

-Frankenstein will probably be the HULK but Banner and Hulk split apart.
-Dracula will have some blood disorder that means he needs to drink others blood and gains temporary powers

-The Mummy will probably be some version of Darkman. An archaeologist who ends up with the curse of the Mummy that can be passed on.

Why can't horror movies just be horror movies?
 
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.
 
Because 'splosions. For whatever dumb ass reason these studios think that if it's not a big budget action/adventure then it simply has no value to them.

"It worked for Avengers/X-Men/Something-Man!"

At least we have the original movies:csad:

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.

I think you CAN make them scary, but some writers are lazy.
 
You can, but it requires a lot of talent behind the cameras, which is lacking nowadays, even the good horror film directors can make their original stories work, but would probably have a harder time with an adaptation.

But to be honest, The Mummy actualy fits the action/ adventure theme better in my opinion, in a way, another young Van Helsing film could also work in that way (you can still have Dracula meet old Van Helsing, but a prequel dealing with the character when he's younger and more physically capable as he fights against vampires and demons could be entertaining).
 
Last edited:
Why can't horror movies just be horror movies?

Horror movies evolved beyond the Universal monsters. I'm not sure trying to cram them into the new definition would go far to help them either.

I'm not saying this is the correct way to go about it, but I understand the idea.

What's wrong with the Creature from the Blue Lagoon being like Prometheus?

Why can' the Mummy be a psychological thriller?
 
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.

Well, my favorite version is the recent Grant Morrison take, so I'm not exactly singing Frank Miller's praises. But my point is, regardless if you like it or not, it IS still a valid iteration of the character and not some studio bastardization.
 
But to be honest, The Mummy actualy fits the action/ adventure theme better in my opinion, in a way, another young Van Helsing film could also work in that way (you can still have Dracula meet old Van Helsing, but a prequel dealing with the character when he's younger and more physically capable as he fights against vampires and demons could be entertaining).

I agree with you on The Mummy. I'm a big fan of the ones with Brendan Fraser, the first one is a perfect mix of horror and action. Too bad it's over...everything is supposed to be "grounded" and "realistic" these days. Whatever that means:hehe:
 
The Mummy is the only one that I think should be an action/adventure. Dracula, Wolf Man, and Frankenstein should be full gothic horror films.
 
Well, my favorite version is the recent Grant Morrison take, so I'm not exactly singing Frank Miller's praises. But my point is, regardless if you like it or not, it IS still a valid iteration of the character and not some studio bastardization.

No, it's not!!! Bastard!

Just kidding, I know what you mean:woot:
 
Would love to see a nicely budgeted filming of Bram Stoker's classic!

The BBC miniseries Count Dracula with Louis Jourdan was decent but it was not extremely well mounted - it looked like it was made for TV.
 
“We don’t have any capes [in our film library]. But what we do have is an incredible legacy and history with the monster characters. We’ve tried over the years to make monster movies — unsuccessfully, actually. So, we took a good, hard look at it, and we settled upon an idea, which is to take it out of the horror genre, put it more in the action-adventure genre and make it present day, bringing these incredibly rich and complex characters into present day and reimagine them and reintroduce them to a contemporary audience.”

**** 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,307
Messages
22,082,965
Members
45,882
Latest member
Charles Xavier
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"