Universal Monsters

Status
Not open for further replies.
They're not doing "horror" horror. None of them are going to be R rated horror flicks since they want these things to be adventure romps that the whole family can somewhat enjoy. They'll be scary but PG-13 scary.
 
Don't jump the gun now Terry, if these films are made in mind to appeal to all ages aka "the family" that's the very thing I'll be slating them over.

Whether they like it or not these characters are born out of horror, neuter that and they already have a non runner.
 
Universal is making blockbuster films out of these Monsters. They'll be blockbusters with a horror flavor, but they won't be pure horror. While horror might be profitable on VOD and if done right, these monsters aren't going to make the money Universal wants with the budgets they require if they don't make blockbusters out of them. It's sad, but true. I'm just thankful the Monsters are getting some time in the spotlight.


I don't feel that these films need to be straight horror flicks with R-ratings, because that's not even necessary to make them a bit scary or haunting. However, I do think it's a mistake to turn each of these films into big-budget blockbusters and action extravaganzas. That, in and of itself, is completely unnecessary and would wind up being the reason that they'd wind up losing money on each film or in the long run.

The Mummy reboot is already a prime example of that. Maybe it's due to the 1999 Mummy film franchise, but why does a film like this need such over-the-top action, city-wide destruction, and boatloads of CGI? Take a look at the synopsis of the iconic 1932 Mummy film for a stark comparison:

In 1921, an archaeological expedition led by Sir Joseph Whemple (Arthur Byron) finds the mummy of ancient Egyptian priest called Imhotep (Boris Karloff). When an inspection of the mummy by Whemple's friend Dr. Muller (Edward Van Sloan) reveals that the viscera were not removed, Muller deduces that Imhotep was buried alive for sacrilege. Imhotep had been mummified alive for attempting to resurrect his forbidden lover, the princess Ankh-es-en-amon. Despite Muller's warning, Sir Joseph's assistant Ralph Norton (Bramwell Fletcher) reads aloud an ancient life-giving scroll – the Scroll of Thoth. Imhotep escapes from the archaeologists, taking the Scroll of Thoth, and prowls Cairo seeking the modern reincarnation of Ankh-es-en-amon.

10 years later, Imhotep is masquerading as a modern Egyptian named Ardath Bey. He calls upon Sir Joseph's son, Frank (David Manners) and Prof. Pearson (Leonard Mudie). He shows them where to dig to find Ankh-es-en-amon's tomb. The archaeologists find the tomb, give the mummy and the treasures to the Cairo Museum, and thank Ardath Bey for the information.

Imhotep encounters Helen Grosvenor (Zita Johann), a woman bearing a striking resemblance to the Princess. Believing her to be Ankh-es-en-amon's reincarnation, he attempts to kill her, with the intention of mummifying her, resurrecting her, and making her his bride. She is saved when she remembers her past life and prays to the goddess Isis to save her. The statue of Isis raises its arm and emits a beam of light that sets the Scroll of Thoth on fire. This breaks the spell that had given Imhotep his immortality, causing him to age rapidly and then crumble to dust. At the urging of Dr. Muller, Frank calls Helen back to the world of the living while the Scroll of Thoth continues to burn.
 
They're not doing "horror" horror. None of them are going to be R rated horror flicks since they want these things to be adventure romps that the whole family can somewhat enjoy. They'll be scary but PG-13 scary.

Don't jump the gun now Terry, if these films are made in mind to appeal to all ages aka "the family" that's the very thing I'll be slating them over.

Whether they like it or not these characters are born out of horror, neuter that and they already have a non runner.

I think Terry is right. Cruise's Mummy movie is PG13 right ? So the other Uni Movies will be.
In bold, that is of no concern, many things were made for children out of the classic monsters.
 
I think you can tell a relatively bloodless Frankenstein story. An invisible man, mummy and creature film can be made without it.

But there is no way I will ever accept an iteration of Dracula or the Wolfman that is bloodless. Blood is literally the centre of their stories. They NEED it.
 
Last edited:
No way there will be R rated, these are meant to have broad wide audience I think.
AFAIC, I don't mind, I don't need gore anymore to be entertained.
 
No way there will be R rated, these are meant to have broad wide audience I think.
AFAIC, I don't mind, I don't need gore anymore to be entertained.

If you recall Dracula Untold, Vlad ripped through an entire army without dropping a hint of blood and it was absolutely ludicrous.

The film incidentally bombed. Sure you could tell a smarter pg13 story about Dracula but it still defeats the purpose: people know what they want from a Dracula film.
 
Dracula bombed but I'm not sure because it was mild. The movie was just not that entertaining and the advertisement was poor.
Cruise's Mummy is miles away from the classic Mummy mythology but it has Cruise, Crowe, the new girl Boutella, decent advertisement and two liked actors.
Cruise alone will sell almost any movie, for God sake, Impossible Mission still makes millions and is nothing close to the TV show.
 
Dracula bombed but I'm not sure because it was mild. The movie was just not that entertaining and the advertisement was poor.
Cruise's Mummy is miles away from the classic Mummy mythology but it has Cruise, Crowe, the new girl Boutella, decent advertisement and two liked actors.
Cruise alone will sell almost any movie, for God sake, Impossible Mission still makes millions and is nothing close to the TV show.

Rock of Ages, Edge of Tomorrow, Jack Reacher 2, OblivionJack Reacher 1...if The Mummy grosses like any of those this movie universe is DOA.
Not all those movies straight up bombed but other than the MI films Tom Cruise doesnt really sell movies like that anymore
 
But they still make profit don't they ?
I'm no expert nor study the cost/profit of his movies closely but Cruise is still a selling name.
As I'm used to say, we shall see. AFAIC, I will see the Mummy in theater, my father is "hyped" for it mostly because of Cruise, the mummy brand and trailer.
 
But they still make profit don't they ?
I'm no expert nor study the cost/profit of his movies closely but Cruise is still a selling name.
As I'm used to say, we shall see. AFAIC, I will see the Mummy in theater, my father is "hyped" for it mostly because of Cruise, the mummy brand and trailer.

They make a profit (by the numbers. I'm not fully knowledgeable on that funny Hollywood accounting) relative to the budget. Or at least some of them do.

But Cruise's last non MI movie (Jack Reacher 2 made, only 58 mill domestically (where studios get the biggest cut) and then 160 overall. If the $140 mill budgeted Mummy makes 160 then that's bad

Now I'm not saying the movie will be bad. I'm just saying people need to stop pretending like Tom Cruise is a major draw or that he's as bankable as he was back in the day other than the MI films. He's still good at what he does tho

EDIT: Holy s***, Cruise has only starred in 1 film outside of the MI films to cross 100 mill domestically in the last 10 years. The last one was Edge of Tomorrow with $100,206,256
 
Last edited:
Rock of Ages, Edge of Tomorrow, Jack Reacher 2, OblivionJack Reacher 1...if The Mummy grosses like any of those this movie universe is DOA.
Not all those movies straight up bombed but other than the MI films Tom Cruise doesnt really sell movies like that anymore

yup mission impossibles films are his big money makers right now the mummy could be in trouble with the competion coming up
 
Rock of Ages, Edge of Tomorrow, Jack Reacher 2, OblivionJack Reacher 1...if The Mummy grosses like any of those this movie universe is DOA.
Not all those movies straight up bombed but other than the MI films Tom Cruise doesnt really sell movies like that anymore

I know Will Smith was the last true movie star but that's a bit dismissive.

Jack Reacher is a detective drama based on a known but not wildly popular book series. It was never going to be a huge money maker. The other two are niche as hell. This has a much better chance of performing well enough to kick off the franchise. This has much broader appeal.
 
Jack Reacher is a detective drama based on a known but not wildly popular book series. It was never going to be a huge money maker. The other two are niche as hell. This has a much better chance of performing well enough to kick off the franchise. This has much broader appeal.

But we were talking about Cruise's star power. If Cruise has the star power people claim he still does all of those would've made a lot more money.

EDIT:And you left out Edge of Tomorrow. That had huge wide appeal. Didn't do that well, didn't do terrible either. So even if you take out all the other examples I listed look at Edge of Tomorrow. Big budget summer action blockbuster starring Cruise. What happened with EoT, even with how good the movie was? It underperformed
 
Nobody has star power anymore. The last movie star was Will Smith. The late 2000s killed the movie star.
 
Exactly

No actor/actress can just make a huge sell on just their name anymore. That's gone.
 
Yep, it's all about genre films and intellectual property adaptations. The Mummy will make enough money overseas to kick off this franchise if it falls below expectations domestically. You can pretty much bet your bottom dollar on that.
 
Yep, it's all about genre films and intellectual property adaptations. The Mummy will make enough money overseas to kick off this franchise if it falls below expectations domestically. You can pretty much bet your bottom dollar on that.

what are you basing that off?
 
Double Toasted put out a video about the new Dark Universe. It was an interesting convo.
 
Nobody has star power anymore. The last movie star was Will Smith. The late 2000s killed the movie star.

Tom Cruise is technically an overseas movie star still. I think some of his flicks retain profitability purely on his overseas draw now.
 
Uh, the majority of action tentpoles that aren't niche properties.

Thats...silly.
Action tentpoles underperform all the time. Unless you're going to say everything that's not a superhero movie is a niche property.

Even today a lot of what is considered "niche" can be turned into something successful. Kinsgman, little known comic, no bankable stars, R rated...made almost 500 mill.
 
And what you said disputes my post in which way? I said the movie would make enough worldwide to kick off the franchise. How many major action tentpoles legitimately bomb? Even Warcraft didn't bomb. Universal is going to proceed with this cinematic universe because this film will make enough.
 
Tom Cruise is technically an overseas movie star still. I think some of his flicks retain profitability purely on his overseas draw now.

You're right. The overseas revenue saves the majoriry of his films. Kudos to him too because many aren't even close to being as lucky.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"