Amph A New(er) World of Gods and Monsters: The Universal Monsters (The Invisible Man)

Will start with Universal's Mummy: The First Monster, to be written and directed by Alex Kurtzman, and have nothing to do with the Brendan Fraser Mummy movies

What say everybody about this? Will their big Phase 1 film be called Monster Mash, or something along those lines?

 

While admittedly not being very familiar with the golden age of horror, my gut reaction is that yes, these movies, assuming that this all pans out should definitely be set in the 30s. They should also be shot in black and white.

 

the drawback is that frankenstein and dracula are public domain monsters. No one is out making bootleg Iron Man movies, but my mom has made her own full length feature Dracula film.

 

They said that the Mummy film would be set in the present day, and not the 1920s-30s, so get that idea out of your head right now.

 

Yes, I read the link. My point is that while I could be wrong, I just don't see this working in a modern setting. The Brendan Fraser Mummy films, although imperfect, worked precisely because of their 30s pulp setting. Same with Indiana Jones. There was an attempt in the 70s to make an updated, modernized King Kong film and it just didn't work for precisely this reason. Kong vs the helicopters just wasn't as interesting as Kong vs the bi-planes. Why do you think that Peter Jackson set his remake in 1933?

 

Oh god that title is real.

 

I think I can hear Sigmund Freud's corpse hitting 3,000 rpm with that title.

 

Hellooooooooooo train-wreck.

 

Hi guys.

 

It's literally animated his remains; reports of a sentient pile of ashes roaming the streets of London have been reported. Allegedly they're moaning "Brains... brains... cocaine..."

 

Now we need a mash-up of Mummy: The First Monster vs. Captain America: The First Avenger to lighten the load...

 

Don't make it look like Van Helsing cgi crap.

 

I used to have this glow in the dark creature action figure.

He was used as a Cantina alien in my fake SW world.

Also had that plaster of Paris thing where you make the monster heads and paint them. Can't find any photos online of that kit.

 

Hahahaha! Same here. I believe I put him and Greedo in the tank multiple times.

 

How would a modern shared universe be received by audiences though? Any undertaking like this would have to return to their roots, instead of being the fiasco that was Van Helsig...

I suppose the Mummy would be the easiest to interest modern audiences, so it makes sense to start with it. There was a decent movie from the late 70's/early 80's titled the Sphinx that TCM occasionally airs that is a decent modern telling of the Mummy's curse. It highlights the mystery of the lore as well as the exotic locations portrayed in the film.

Frankenstein would be more difficult as the original focus is no longer relevant. Frankenstein's agony over his creation relates to his feelings of technology being an affront to God, and the concern of his creation(s) having unnnatural offspring which would replace humanity. George Romero and the rise of the zombie genre did more to diminish Frankenstein and his monster than any remake or retelling.

Dracula would be the most difficult, as the original focus is all but lost. Sources like Twilight, which have ruined put a different spin on the entire vampire mythology in general, make it all but impossible to treat the genre with any kind of seriousness.

What else is included in the original "Universal Monsters?" I suppose Creature From The Black Lagoon is. Wolfman...Any others?

 

Where's our solo Bride of Frankensten movie? WTF, Universal?

 

Yeah. this is the part that I really don't see working in a modern setting, while yes, you could theortically say that Frakenstein's monster is the result of some sort of banned genetics experiment gone wrong, in the original source material, its stated pretty blatantly that the creature is a shambling abomination composed of body parts that were acquired as a result of grave robbing and animated because Victor Frankenstein made a symbolic faustian bargin and used his new knowledge to play God. There's a lot of interesting thematic material to play with, but the image of the creature as a rotting animated corpse with bolts in its neck is pretty ingrained in our collective consciousness, to the point where we call the creature Frankenstein.

 

Dracula Untold actually looks pretty good though. It kind of has a Ridley Scott vibe. Like Kingdom of Heaven, but with vampires.

 

I kinda dig that they're taking a page out of the Marvel/Disney playbook here. Probably a good idea that they built in a fail safe on Dracula Untold, though, as the early reviews have not been especially kind (%32 on RT with 22 reviews in). Not that it means it won't still be a hit, but if it's not well received by audiences, Universal may want to distance the new UMCU from it so that it isn't a buzz kill on their new venture.

My expectations are pretty low. It can't be any worse than I, Frankenstein or Van Helsing.

 

The question is: Is Dracula Untold a movie you can sink your teeth into?