Universal Monsters

Status
Not open for further replies.
I honestly think it's because not many people read Mary Shelley's original, so they just saw it and said "derrr why isn't he green with bolts in his neck?" :o:oldrazz:


I'm outraged that Dracula in the last movie didn't even try to teach us anything about numbers or math.
 
The monster in Mary Shelley's original is very intelligent, self-reflective, eloquent, emotional,... very different from the green grunting monster Universal Pictures gave us.
 
The monster in Mary Shelley's original is very intelligent, self-reflective, eloquent, emotional,... very different from the green grunting monster Universal Pictures gave us.

Even back in the 30s that would've bored people wanting monster action.
 
It's a shame. The best interpretation of the monster yet is in Penny Dreadful. And even then, there's room to make it more faithful in terms of looks. Del Toro has the right idea.
 
You know what would be a good monster mash? Godzilla versus Moby Dick. With my pulgasari, the North Korean kaiju, chucked in as well
 
I liked the look of the last Wolf Man and how it moved. Del Toro even gore some resemblance to Lon Chaney jr. the asylum transformation was decent. really didn't like the reveal of the villain; just kind of cheesy-looking.
 
Exclusive: Universal taps writer to pen 'The Wolf Man' http://thr.cm/OkTSnG

Another Wolf Man?

ev0vg7.gif
 
I loved Del Toro's Wolfman and I love the character in general. He's my #2 favorite Universal Monster behind Frankenstein. I say bring it on.
 
But no word yet on the creature from the black lagoon? That makes me sad
 
Only some very early rumours that Scarlett Johansson was being lined up to star in the movie. Not as the creature mind you.
 
I loved Del Toro's Wolfman and I love the character in general. He's my #2 favorite Universal Monster behind Frankenstein. I say bring it on.

This. They got some things right with the 2010 movie (Del Toro, Weaving, the makeup, the savagery and gore and, my God, that transition from a two legged run to a four legged one - LOVED those shots) but overall the production troubles made for a very disjointed movie which didnt live up to the expectation that it was going to be the difinitive updating of a classic. With this in mind I say that until they do get it right, go for it.
 
I've always felt that the 2010 remake was and still is better than the original. But then again, as much as I've always loved the 1941 rendition, it didn't ever make the same lasting impression that Frankenstein and Dracula did.
 
I REALLY didn't like what they did to Sir John Talbot's character in that movie.
 
Yeah the stuff with the father being a Werewolf and the big Werewolf fight at the end was pretty dumb.

BTW have there been any talks of doing another Van Helsing movie? I know there were rumors Tom Cruise was going to do one, but seeing as he's in The Mummy I assume those are dead.
 
I didn't like they made him so overtly antagonistic/villainous in-general. In the original, Sir John isn't perfect, and he initially has trouble relating to his son. But he really isn't a BAD guy, and in the end ends up being a rather tragic figure (like his son ironically).

Also I really didn't need the whole "Sir Anthony Hopkins lusting over Emily Blunt, who in tern is engaged to his son" image in my head. Thanks a lot for that one movie (grumbles).
 
My favourite depiction of Talbot Sr was in Penny Dreadful. Brian Cox walked the razors edge of him being an antagonist and yet also being understandable in why he was against his son.
 
Only now realised Talbot Sr. in Penny Dreadful was inspired by a character in the original Wolf-Man. I think that show overall was a good example of the potential of reinterpreting Unviersal Horror, also left the studio with some giant shoes to fill.
 
I still need to watch Penny Dreadful. I know it's right up my alley. Just haven't gotten around to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"