Toho Kingdom

Maritonic wrote:

mvp9056 wrote:Once again, those movies didn't work because they were (bad) action movies focused on all the wrong things with these characters. I get what you're saying, and even pointed out that one of the biggest reasons those classics work is because of the performances. But most of the general audience hasn't seen those older films, therefore they don't have that same framework you do. If they see a good performance and grow attached to it, then that is all it is to them. I don't see how other capable actors can't utilize the material as well, or give their own takes on them. I've always felt the best way to continue these characters is through new stories, maybe introducing new characters, or evolving the already existing characters in some way.

If people had the same attitudes with Godzilla, Kong, Batman, or any number of other characters; just doing the same things with them or discontinuing them all together after their first few landmark appearances, we wouldn't have amount/variety of material we have today.

Most of the general audience hasn't seen those older films? We're talking about some of the most iconic films in all history. I have to completely disagree with you on that.

We keep talking in circles. I get you think other people can do it. I keep saying it's possible I just think it's unlikely because 9.9/10 Dracula movies suck. 9.9/10 Frankenstein movies suck.

And the Godzilla, Kong, and Batman comparisons aren't really comparable; we get a "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" movie every few years, it's not as if they don't stop making them.

We don't actually get Dracula or Frankenstein all that much these days. That's an exaggeration I think as I Frankenstein and Victor Frankenstein are the only notable films that have been released in recent time, and those came out in a short window 4-5 years ago. The only notable Dracula film was DU 5 years ago. They don't come out in such quick succession anymore.

They're iconic yes, but that's because of the characters' imagery in pop culture. Most people (especially younger) don't even like watching old B&W movies. Just because something is iconic doesn't necessarily equate to people having seen all the movies/material based on them, and in this case the age and format would be a turnoff to most mainstream audiences.

I used Kong and Godzilla as examples to say that, like Frank or Drac, they're old characters that creative directors had ideas on how to update or do new things with. This in turn kept them fresh for modern audiences. And Godzilla movies were coming out almost year after year, the same time most of the Frankenstein and Dracula films we have were being made (50's to 70's).

To change the topic, we got confirmation on what the first new film in Universal Monster Verse (take 4) is.

An Invisible Man film by Upgrade director Leigh Whannell under Blumhouse production


Got to say, not to jinx it, but I think this one might work. I've heard rave things about Upgrade, Invisible Man isn't as oversatured as the other monsters while still having plenty of potential, and Blumhouse has produced some good films.


Fingers crossed.

I expect this to fail again.

1st Strike: Dracula Untold
2nd Strike: The Mummy

This will be the third strike.

How would you even make a successful modern film like that, would we see a silhouette similar to if he was using a cloak from Halo? Or just the frame with no one in it, talking through voice overs, then a dude wrapped like a mummy with sunglasses, and at that point how do you show emotion? I guess with body expressions but I doubt that would work well enough to kick something like a cinematic universe off.

SoggyNoodles2016 wrote:To change the topic, we got confirmation on what the first new film in Universal Monster Verse (take 4) is.

An Invisible Man film by Upgrade director Leigh Whannell under Blumhouse production


Got to say, not to jinx it, but I think this one might work. I've heard rave things about Upgrade, Invisible Man isn't as oversatured as the other monsters while still having plenty of potential, and Blumhouse has produced some good films.


Fingers crossed.

Nah, this literally was the topic actually haha.

Added in 1 minute 7 seconds:

_JNavs_ wrote:How would you even make a successful modern film like that, would we see a silhouette similar to if he was using a cloak from Halo? Or just the frame with no one in it, talking through voice overs, then a dude wrapped like a mummy with sunglasses, and at that point how do you show emotion? I guess with body expressions but I doubt that would work well enough to kick something like a cinematic universe off.

Probably do it like they did the original. Just have him not be there. Truly invisible. They actually did a decent job with him in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

_JNavs_ wrote:How would you even make a successful modern film like that, would we see a silhouette similar to if he was using a cloak from Halo? Or just the frame with no one in it, talking through voice overs, then a dude wrapped like a mummy with sunglasses, and at that point how do you show emotion? I guess with body expressions but I doubt that would work well enough to kick something like a cinematic universe off.

They did something like this in Hollow Man. Just a dude with a good voice and some camera tricks (similar to any number of ghost films where nothings there but things move). With the budgets Blumhouse works with this is right up their alley.

As far as when he's visible, think something like Rorschach, where you don't see his face but he has good body language to express what he's feeling.

And the article says they're not doing the shared universe anymore, just standalone films with individual approaches.

They'll do two good films then announce the Universe is back on and make a bomb, watch.

Excited for this, this is what they should've been doing in the first place. Hope they can get Del Toro attached to one of these projects since he's such a big fan of the Universal Monsters.

KillCrites wrote:Excited for this, this is what they should've been doing in the first place. Hope they can get Del Toro attached to one of these projects since he's such a big fan of the Universal Monsters.

If he didn't just do Shape of Water, I'd vote for Creature. Now I'd like to see what he would do with The Mummy.

Maritonic wrote:

KillCrites wrote:Excited for this, this is what they should've been doing in the first place. Hope they can get Del Toro attached to one of these projects since he's such a big fan of the Universal Monsters.

If he didn't just do Shape of Water, I'd vote for Creature. Now I'd like to see what he would do with The Mummy.

Probably something heavy-handed and self-indulgent. You know, because he'd still be Del Toro.

Guillermo del Toro should had been hired to be in charge of the cinematic universe in the first place.

Like really the whole thing writes itself for him.

GodzillaFan1990's wrote:Guillermo del Toro should had been hired to be in charge of the cinematic universe in the first place.

Like really the whole thing writes itself for him.

This times a thousand. That being said I really don't understand the hate the later Universal Monster movies get even the ones that were not a part of the Dark Universe. I thought the Wolfman remake was intense, loved Dracula Untold, and I really enjoyed The Mummy.

cloverfan98 wrote:This times a thousand. That being said I really don't understand the hate the later Universal Monster movies get even the ones that were not a part of the Dark Universe. I thought the Wolfman remake was intense, loved Dracula Untold, and I really enjoyed The Mummy.

I too loved the Wolfman remake and found it to be a pretty solid entertaining film.

Also enjoyed Dracula Untold especially for the new take on Dracula himself. Could say a guilty pleasure I suppose.

Newest Mummy movie though? Tried too hard to copy the MCU. Bad move.

I'm up for a new Invisible Man HORROR movie. Just leave Kevin Bacon and all the mindless bimbos out of it, please...

MandaSaurus wrote:I'm up for a new Invisible Man HORROR movie. Just leave Kevin Bacon and all the mindless bimbos out of it, please...

I never saw the original, what made the Invisible Man a horror flick?

MandaSaurus wrote:I'm up for a new Invisible Man HORROR movie. Just leave Kevin Bacon and all the mindless bimbos out of it, please...

That's Hollow Man

Maritonic wrote:

eabaker wrote:

Maritonic wrote:So this is their, what, fourth new course for this? Just let it die.

At least it seems like they're letting it be more storyteller-driven, and not focused on forcing an interconnected cinematic universe. I think that's always been the wrong approach for these characters, but they are characters I think could continue to have an interesting presence in movies.

Possibly, but I just don't see them continuing anymore. What made these movies so excellent is far lost to history. I don't think we're capable of recreating it.

I agree that they'll never recreate it, I disagree that they shouldn't try. No, they'll never recapture that magic with a new Dracula or Frankenstein movie, but I don't really care. I love these characters, not as relics of the past that I only see in old movies, but as a continuing part of the cinematic experience. I'll give Universal or any other studio a hundred chances if they need it, as long as I get some good monster movies out of it. I liked the Wolf Man remake. I think a lot of fans say if you can't achieve the level of success with a property you wat you shouldn't do it, but I'll always disagree. The idea might not be a huge success, but it can still be profitable, some of us will have fun with them in the theaters, and they can't possibly tarnish the original classics. I think that's enough reason to wish them luck and hope they continue, at least for me.

Added in 17 minutes :

Maritonic wrote:

mvp9056 wrote:Once again, those movies didn't work because they were (bad) action movies focused on all the wrong things with these characters. I get what you're saying, and even pointed out that one of the biggest reasons those classics work is because of the performances. But most of the general audience hasn't seen those older films, therefore they don't have that same framework you do. If they see a good performance and grow attached to it, then that is all it is to them. I don't see how other capable actors can't utilize the material as well, or give their own takes on them. I've always felt the best way to continue these characters is through new stories, maybe introducing new characters, or evolving the already existing characters in some way.

If people had the same attitudes with Godzilla, Kong, Batman, or any number of other characters; just doing the same things with them or discontinuing them all together after their first few landmark appearances, we wouldn't have amount/variety of material we have today.

Most of the general audience hasn't seen those older films? We're talking about some of the most iconic films in all history. I have to completely disagree with you on that.

No, he's probably right. These movies hardly ever play on reruns anymore outside of Svengoolie. I was already an adult when I started watching most of the Universal Monster movies (I remember seeing Abbot and Costello meet Frankenstein as a kid, that was it), and I only saw them because I looked for them knowing they'd probably be the sort of thing I would like (and I was right). A lot of my fellow millenials know of these movies, have seen bits of them, but haven't actually watched any of them. They're just not hovering around anymore like they used to. Which frankly is a shame, because they're such great movies. But yeah, being classic and iconic no longer means being seen or watched in today's world.

Added in 7 minutes 37 seconds:

miguelnuva wrote:They'll do two good films then announce the Universe is back on and make a bomb, watch.

That'd be fine with me just to get two good classic monster movies.

Maritonic wrote:

KillCrites wrote:Excited for this, this is what they should've been doing in the first place. Hope they can get Del Toro attached to one of these projects since he's such a big fan of the Universal Monsters.

If he didn't just do Shape of Water, I'd vote for Creature. Now I'd like to see what he would do with The Mummy.

Actually I'd want him to do Frankenstein because he has a special love for the character and it's no secret he wants to make a Frankenstein movie.

How many times must this fail before Universal realizes that nobody wants this Dark Universe anymore?! Only Del Toro could have made this work, but considering how he was chased of Pacific Rim 2 and was turned down for his Creature of the Black Lagoon idea, I don't think he'd want to do it anymore. Just let this die.

Besides, hasn't the Godzillaverse made all this pointless considering how famous Godzilla himself, not to mention many of his buddies and foes, is?

Rhedosaurus wrote:Only Del Toro could have made this work..

I'm a huge Del Toro mark and even I think this is a stupid statement.

Rhedosaurus wrote:How many times must this fail before Universal realizes that nobody wants this Dark Universe anymore?! Only Del Toro could have made this work, but considering how he was chased of Pacific Rim 2 and was turned down for his Creature of the Black Lagoon idea, I don't think he'd want to do it anymore. Just let this die.

Besides, hasn't the Godzillaverse made all this pointless considering how famous Godzilla himself, not to mention many of his buddies and foes, is?

Del Toro isn't the only director capable of making good movies with these characters. And why would Godzilla's franchise prevent these movies from happening? They're two different franchises, two different aesthetics.

And once again they're discontinuing the Dark Universe and just making standalone movies. A lot of weird points you made in this this. I know some of ya'll don't see the point, but if you're arguing that stance atleast come up with reasons that make sense.