Universal to bring BACK its Monster Universe after DECADES!!

Quote :

“I was raised on monster movies,” Morgan says. “I used to make my own fake puke, so I wouldn’t have to go to school and could stay home and watch things like ‘Cat People’ on TV. I can still tell you what I used — orange juice, Saltines, Pepsi and milk.”

Both men think that after more than a decade of seeing Captain America, Batman and other heroes routinely save civilization, moviegoers are ready for a change of pace.

“Heroes tend to be perfect, but most people in an audience aren’t ever going to know what it’s like to be the smartest, strongest or fastest person alive,” Morgan says. “But there’s a darkness inside everybody. And everyone wants to be able to turn a curse into empowerment. The monsters have been in the shadows, and now it’s time to bring them out into the light.”

In case you guys don't know, Universal had their own "cinematic universe" (more commonly referred to as the "Monster Era" back then) that was centered around horror monsters more than 6 decades ago and are now bringing it back for modern audiences.

 Dude, I am SO in! :)

I don't understand how this can work? These characters are public domain. Meaning, ANYONE can make a monsters film universe. Sure Universal has certain rights to whatever originated in their Universal monster movies back in the 30s, but that doesn't change the fact that anyone can use these characters. For example, we are getting Victor Frankenstein this month by Fox. So how are audiences going to know which belongs in the same universe? And are they willing to see ANOTHER Frankenstein film when Universal decides to make their own version?

Mecha wrote:

I don't understand how this can work? These characters are public domain. Meaning, ANYONE can make a monsters film universe. Sure Universal has certain rights to whatever originated in their Universal monster movies back in the 30s, but that doesn't change the fact that anyone can use these characters. For example, we are getting Victor Frankenstein this month by Fox. So how are audiences going to know which belongs in the same universe? And are they willing to see ANOTHER Frankenstein film when Universal decides to make their own version?

Every monster is a public domain, but specific versions aren't. 

When you ask most people about Dracula, they'd say they know who it is, but when you ask about Nosferatu, you may raise some eyebrows. The trick? They're both the same monster.

Universal still owns the rights to most of their classic versions, which will help sell them to the audience as they're the more recognizable ones (for the most parts.)

RamboOnRedBull wrote:

Mecha wrote:

I don't understand how this can work? These characters are public domain. Meaning, ANYONE can make a monsters film universe. Sure Universal has certain rights to whatever originated in their Universal monster movies back in the 30s, but that doesn't change the fact that anyone can use these characters. For example, we are getting Victor Frankenstein this month by Fox. So how are audiences going to know which belongs in the same universe? And are they willing to see ANOTHER Frankenstein film when Universal decides to make their own version?

Every monster is a public domain, but specific versions aren't. 

When you ask most people about Dracula, they'd say they know who it is, but when you ask about Nosferatu, you may raise some eyebrows. The trick? They're both the same monster.

Universal still owns the rights to most of their classic versions, which will help sell them to the audience as they're the more recognizable ones (for the most parts.)

That's why I said, "Sure Universal has certain rights to whatever originated in their Universal monster movies back in the 30s". I'm aware that they have the rights to their versions. Even though anyone can escape around it. I also know that Universal has the film rights to the title "Dracula". Which is why most Dracula films are always sub-titled or has the name of the author on it. But even if Universal is doing their versions of the characters, it sure don't sound like it. Like The Mummy taking place in modern day for example.

RamboOnRedBull wrote:

Quote :

Well, I'm sure they'll use some variations in there since, like I originally said: "[Universal] are bringing it back for modern audiences", they kind of have to freshen them up to make modern audiences really care. That being said, I'm also sure that they will use most of their classic DNA to their franchises as well. I mean, if not, why keep them, you know?

Exactly! Usually I prefer Dracula and Frankenstein to be more faithful to the novels, since none of their films have truly done justice to the books. But in this case, Universal should take advantage of their versions instead. However, Universal does have the rights to The Wolf Man though. But that leaves another problem, we already seen The Wolf Man get remade. Then again, they are re-remaking The Mummy AGAIN, so yeah.

Mecha wrote:

RamboOnRedBull wrote:

Quote :

Well, I'm sure they'll use some variations in there since, like I originally said: "[Universal] are bringing it back for modern audiences", they kind of have to freshen them up to make modern audiences really care. That being said, I'm also sure that they will use most of their classic DNA to their franchises as well. I mean, if not, why keep them, you know?

Exactly! Usually I prefer Dracula and Frankenstein to be more faithful to the novels, since none of their films have truly done justice to the books. But in this case, Universal should take advantage of their versions instead. However, Universal does have the rights to The Wolf Man though. But that leaves another problem, we already seen The Wolf Man get remade. Then again, they are re-remaking The Mummy AGAIN, so yeah.

I would say that the new Mummy is less of a remake and more of a different version. You wouldn't call Todd Browning's 1931 Dracula to be a remake of Murnau's classic Nosferatu from the silent era. I'm sure it's the same case with this new Mummy. Especially since it's being touted as "a horror film" rather than some fantasy/adventure crap.

RamboOnRedBull wrote:

Mecha wrote:

RamboOnRedBull wrote:

Quote :

Well, I'm sure they'll use some variations in there since, like I originally said: "[Universal] are bringing it back for modern audiences", they kind of have to freshen them up to make modern audiences really care. That being said, I'm also sure that they will use most of their classic DNA to their franchises as well. I mean, if not, why keep them, you know?

Exactly! Usually I prefer Dracula and Frankenstein to be more faithful to the novels, since none of their films have truly done justice to the books. But in this case, Universal should take advantage of their versions instead. However, Universal does have the rights to The Wolf Man though. But that leaves another problem, we already seen The Wolf Man get remade. Then again, they are re-remaking The Mummy AGAIN, so yeah.

I would say that the new Mummy is less of a remake and more of a different version. You wouldn't call Todd Browning's 1931 Dracula to be a remake of Murnau's classic Nosferatu from the silent era. I'm sure it's the same case with this new Mummy. Especially since it's being touted as "a horror film" rather than some fantasy/adventure crap.

That's not how audiences are going to see it. People still have Brendan Fraser's Mummy in their minds. But I guess, it all depends how they advertise the film. Also I don't know why, but I got the feeling that these Universal monster movies will be PG-13.

Mecha wrote:

RamboOnRedBull wrote:

Mecha wrote:

RamboOnRedBull wrote:

Quote :

Well, I'm sure they'll use some variations in there since, like I originally said: "[Universal] are bringing it back for modern audiences", they kind of have to freshen them up to make modern audiences really care. That being said, I'm also sure that they will use most of their classic DNA to their franchises as well. I mean, if not, why keep them, you know?

Exactly! Usually I prefer Dracula and Frankenstein to be more faithful to the novels, since none of their films have truly done justice to the books. But in this case, Universal should take advantage of their versions instead. However, Universal does have the rights to The Wolf Man though. But that leaves another problem, we already seen The Wolf Man get remade. Then again, they are re-remaking The Mummy AGAIN, so yeah.

I would say that the new Mummy is less of a remake and more of a different version. You wouldn't call Todd Browning's 1931 Dracula to be a remake of Murnau's classic Nosferatu from the silent era. I'm sure it's the same case with this new Mummy. Especially since it's being touted as "a horror film" rather than some fantasy/adventure crap.

That's not how audiences are going to see it. People still have Brendan Fraser's Mummy in their minds. But I guess, it all depends how they advertise the film. Also I don't know why, but I got the feeling that these Universal monster movies will be PG-13.

Well, if audiences don't see those two versions as remakes, then there's no reason they'll see these two as such, either.

RamboOnRedBull wrote:

Mecha wrote:

RamboOnRedBull wrote:

Mecha wrote:

RamboOnRedBull wrote:

Exactly! Usually I prefer Dracula and Frankenstein to be more faithful to the novels, since none of their films have truly done justice to the books. But in this case, Universal should take advantage of their versions instead. However, Universal does have the rights to The Wolf Man though. But that leaves another problem, we already seen The Wolf Man get remade. Then again, they are re-remaking The Mummy AGAIN, so yeah.

I would say that the new Mummy is less of a remake and more of a different version. You wouldn't call Todd Browning's 1931 Dracula to be a remake of Murnau's classic Nosferatu from the silent era. I'm sure it's the same case with this new Mummy. Especially since it's being touted as "a horror film" rather than some fantasy/adventure crap.

That's not how audiences are going to see it. People still have Brendan Fraser's Mummy in their minds. But I guess, it all depends how they advertise the film. Also I don't know why, but I got the feeling that these Universal monster movies will be PG-13.

Well, if audiences don't see those two versions as remakes, then there's no reason they'll see these two as such, either.

It's not that they won't see the difference between the two. It's just people expect the fantasy adventure comedy from the Mummy franchise now.

This is OLD news. I believe Dracula Untold was suppose to start this "universe".

yonny616 wrote:

This is OLD news. I believe Dracula Untold was suppose to start this "universe".

It was. Until it sucked (no pun intended).

Mecha wrote:

yonny616 wrote:

This is OLD news. I believe Dracula Untold was suppose to start this "universe".

It was. Until it sucked (no pun intended).

Has Universal confirmed it won't be part? Or are they retrying like WB did with the DC movie universe after Green Lantern failed?

yonny616 wrote:

Mecha wrote:

yonny616 wrote:

This is OLD news. I believe Dracula Untold was suppose to start this "universe".

It was. Until it sucked (no pun intended).

Has Universal confirmed it won't be part? Or are they retrying like WB did with the DC movie universe after Green Lantern failed?

Seems like they did reshoots to make Dracula Untold fit with the monsters universe. But once it flopped, they are ignoring it now.

The member 'Mecha' has done the following action : Turn the Wheel of Fate

'Jack Says' :