Help support the Mego Museum
Help support the Mego Museum

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Universal Monsters getting rebooted

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • madmarva
    Talkative Member
    • Jul 7, 2007
    • 6445

    #31
    Originally posted by Earth 2 Chris
    ^No thanks. I really hope they use real actors with practical effects. The Universal monsters were all about pathos (well, maybe not Dracula), and to be able to relate to the monster, you need to have a human in there, IMHO.

    Chris
    In the Del Toro Wolfman remake, Universal initially planned to use Baker's practical effects, but switched, which really left him upset.

    I'd like to see it done practically as well, but I don't know if that Geni will go back in the bottle because of time and expense. But it would be cool if they did it.

    If CGI and Mocap is used, Serkis is about the best out there. His performance in the new Apes movies are excellent, to me. Better than just an animated monkey. There is a performance there that shows through the cGI. I'd trust him to emulate Karloff's Frankenstein over anyone.

    With Wolfman, it probably would be best to use whatever actor plays the character for some semblance of the man in the Wolfman.

    I think it would be fun to see Burton's spin on one of his prime influences.
    Last edited by madmarva; Jul 21, '14, 5:19 AM.

    Comment

    • MIB41
      Eloquent Member
      • Sep 25, 2005
      • 15631

      #32
      It seems that the Avengers effect is being emulated on every license that has multiple characters. In some respects, this is a fun idea. On another, it becomes a very tricky mine field to travel through conceptually. When you think of the initial Universal monster movies that combined these characters on a broad scale, they weren't particularly good movies compared to those in the 30's. Team ups like Frankenstein meet the Wolfman were fun, if not offbeat, with Legosi as the monster. But movies like House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula were low B-grade films. Sure, they were a blast to watch, but conceptually they read like they were written on the back of a napkin for a quick buck. That's a quality that registered when I saw Van Helsing. The difference being I appreciated the makeups and manual effects more from those films made in the 40's. So I think the camp of those ideas has to be removed.

      And then becomes the big question - What do you remove as camp that might have brought an added charm to those monsters? And is that charm on a universal level or just by your definition as a child growing up watching it? Because for me, Frankenstein's monster will ALWAYS be Karloff or Glenn Strange. And while I know my childhood memories play a huge role in that feeling, I think the reality is Hollywood has never designed a better makeup since Jack Pierce. Since that time, most monster makeups have tried to go so far to the left of Pierce's design that they lose any distinction of their own. And with movies like Van Helsing, where they toy with that original idea, the end result is so "decaff", it just makes you want the classic more. So therein lies the rub.

      You have very iconic images that, like superheroes, can only be afforded so much conceptual tinkering. In some respects the Universal monsters may require a closer connection since superheroes enjoy more of a constant makeover these days. The Universal Monsters have really only one image. So when we hear this kind of news and the term "Universal Monsters" is part of that announcement, we tend to think of THOSE monsters, and not just a general license description. That's a unbreakable connection, especially when they couple the headline with those images. For me if they're going to reference those images, then I want to see something that invokes those memories when I watch it. I think it would be interesting to make the movies as if they were set in the 30's and 40's again. That would at least give them some artistic license to play to that original mood.

      Comment

      • Earth 2 Chris
        Verbose Member
        • Mar 7, 2004
        • 32498

        #33
        I think Van Helsing failed, visually at least, because the notion seemed to be to take the look of the characters and amp them up to 12, even past 11. Frankenstein's monster with his ridiculous see-through skull and heart was a prime example. The horrible CGI werewolves were another.

        I'd love to see someone like Baker be able to revisit the original Pierce make-ups and reinterpret them slightly, with more modern techniques. Although they didn't have the license, the Monster Squad did a great job of somewhat modernizing the classic Uni look without whizzing all over it.

        Chris
        sigpic

        Comment

        • Hedji
          Citizen of Gotham
          • Nov 17, 2012
          • 7246

          #34
          ^GREAT post, Tom.

          See, if you're going to bring back the Universal Monsters, you have to ask what makes a Universal Monster Movie what it is?


          How about short running time? A lot of them clocked in at under 80 minutes.

          Black and white, anyone?

          And absolutely, there is no question, the original look and makeup designs needs strict adherence. Otherwise, why call it a Universal Monster?

          It would definitely be great to set it in the 1940s.

          I wish them luck. It's really a daunting task to keep it grounded in the past, but make it marketable to a modern (and don't forget GLOBAL) audience.

          Comment

          • palitoy
            live. laugh. lisa needs braces
            • Jun 16, 2001
            • 59201

            #35
            It's a very solid argument, many of the Universal films were standard pot boilers.

            It's one of the reasons I didn't mind the first Mummy remake, it was pretty much an updated Kharis movie.


            I really wanted to like Van Helsing but I couldn't enjoy it, not as a Universal Monster fan or merely as a person who likes to be entertained. Something about it just misses.
            Places to find PlaidStallions online: https://linktr.ee/Plaidstallions

            Buy Toy-Ventures Magazine here:
            http://www.plaidstallions.com/reboot/shop

            Comment

            • Hedji
              Citizen of Gotham
              • Nov 17, 2012
              • 7246

              #36
              Agreed. I just couldn't take that movie. All that swinging around and noise. Couldn't wait for it to end.

              Comment

              • palitoy
                live. laugh. lisa needs braces
                • Jun 16, 2001
                • 59201

                #37
                Yeah, that opening scene really set a tone for the movie and it wasn't good.

                Also, i think LXG opened that same summer and had this amazing practical effect Mr Hyde that just made the one in VH look like Magilla Gorilla.
                Places to find PlaidStallions online: https://linktr.ee/Plaidstallions

                Buy Toy-Ventures Magazine here:
                http://www.plaidstallions.com/reboot/shop

                Comment

                • enyawd72
                  Maker of Monsters!
                  • Oct 1, 2009
                  • 7904

                  #38
                  Personally, I think Universal has exactly one masterpiece under it's belt already with the Wolfman remake. Some CGI aside, it did use a fantastic Rick Baker makeup which was exactly what it should have been, an update of the original. It also featured the same characters as the original series, with Lawrence Talbot, Gwen Conliffe and Maleva. There's absolutely no reason Del Toro's Talbot couldn't be resurrected in the same fashion as Frankenstein meets the Wolfman. Better yet, get Hugo Weaving back and pay him whatever he wants to play the Werewolf of London, which is honestly where I thought they were heading with the ending setup of the first film.
                  Wolfman-2010-Werewolf-Movie-Costume-Display-Statue-4_1.JPG

                  Comment

                  • Earth 2 Chris
                    Verbose Member
                    • Mar 7, 2004
                    • 32498

                    #39
                    ^I agree the Wolfman remake was pretty good. It wasn't QUITE what I had hoped, but overall I enjoyed it quite a bit. BUT, it bombed. Universal is not likely to want tie a prospective franchise into a commercial failure.

                    Chris
                    sigpic

                    Comment

                    • palitoy
                      live. laugh. lisa needs braces
                      • Jun 16, 2001
                      • 59201

                      #40
                      I didn't love the Wolfman remake but I thought it was largely right headed if that makes any sense. Putting it on screens in February didn't help it's box office, had they released it in October as planned, it would have been bigger.
                      Places to find PlaidStallions online: https://linktr.ee/Plaidstallions

                      Buy Toy-Ventures Magazine here:
                      http://www.plaidstallions.com/reboot/shop

                      Comment

                      • Earth 2 Chris
                        Verbose Member
                        • Mar 7, 2004
                        • 32498

                        #41
                        ^Definitely. Hollywood always seems to underestimate the fact that we still associate these classic monsters with Halloween. Just walk into any Wal-Mart in a month or so and you'll see how bone-headed this is.

                        The Wolfman remake had such great ingredients...but the mixture wasn't quite as good as the individual parts, for some reason. I can never put my finger on it.

                        Chris
                        sigpic

                        Comment

                        • Hedji
                          Citizen of Gotham
                          • Nov 17, 2012
                          • 7246

                          #42
                          Yeah, I saw it and can't remember it.

                          Comment

                          • madmarva
                            Talkative Member
                            • Jul 7, 2007
                            • 6445

                            #43
                            I agree had Wolfman been released in October, it would have done better at the box office. I liked the movie, and also would have liked to have seen a sequel. The direct to video werewolf movie Universal followed it up with - title escapes me - wasn't bad for what it was. Reminded me a lot of Hammer films.

                            Tom's point about defining the necessities of what Universal Monsters are really is the million dollar question. I would agree using Pierce's designs are key, and if they are not achieved with mo caps, finding the right faces to wear the designs. To me Karloff looked best in the original when he was so gaunt from being a starving actor. The monster's look changes greatly in Karloff's 3 films because of aging and gaining weight and then look at the differences between Chaney, Lugosi and Strange.

                            I don't think younger audiences would embrace black and white films, although I wouldn't mind.

                            It has never bothered me making the leap of Dracula, Wolfman and Frankenstein being in the same world, maybe because that's the way I was introduced to the characters or because all those films were set in a fairy tale version of Europe, but the Mummy and Creature being involved is a leap to me, lol.

                            I really like the novel by Roven "Return of the Wolfman," which picks up the threads from Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, but treats the characters seriously, but I know Universal won't do that.

                            It would take more than a few minutes thought to find a suitable answer, but I'd love to be paid to do it.


                            A lot rests on the Mummy film. If it flops, it will be Universal's version of Green Lantern. It may not kill the effort to revive the monsters, but it will severely set it back.

                            Comment

                            • PNGwynne
                              Master of Fowl Play
                              • Jun 5, 2008
                              • 19444

                              #44
                              Originally posted by 4NDR01D
                              I'd like to see Tim Burton get a crack at doing an actual Universal Monster film. You can kinda tell he's always wanted too.
                              Burton has become too self-indulgent, but if he could do a Universal Monsters film as good as Sleepy Hollow, I'd be thrilled. I think that film ranks among his best, I can watch it over & over.
                              WANTED: Dick Grayson SI trousers; gray AJ Mustang horse; vintage RC Batman (Bruce Wayne) head; minty Wolfman tights; mint Black Knight sword; minty Launcelot boots; Lion Rock (pale) Dracula & Mummy heads; Lion Rock Franky squared boots; Wayne Foundation blue furniture; Flash Gordon/Ming (10") unbroken holsters; CHiPs gloved arms; POTA T2 tan body; CTVT/vintage Friar Tuck robes, BBP TZ Burgess Meredith glasses.

                              Comment

                              • Earth 2 Chris
                                Verbose Member
                                • Mar 7, 2004
                                • 32498

                                #45
                                I wish Universal was starting with Frankenstein, but I understand the Mummy has been a money-making franchise for them, so that makes sense. Even though Universal's Dracula preceded Frankenstein, Frank is the heart of the Universal Monsters. If they got him right, I'd feel more confident the rest would fall into place.

                                But I guess it's a bit like starting out with Iron Man in the Marvel films. Before the movies, Iron Man didn't immediately jump to mind when I thought of Marvel, and Cap is the heart of the MU to me, so maybe they are on the right track!

                                Burton has become too self-indulgent, but if he could do a Universal Monsters film as good as Sleepy Hollow, I'd be thrilled. I think that film ranks among his best, I can watch it over & over.
                                Oh yeah! I really enjoy that film, despite it totally mucking with the source material. But, it's really no worse than what Universal did to Frankenstein, as compared to Shelly's novel. That film has an awesome Hammer vibe to it.

                                Chris
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                😀
                                🥰
                                🤢
                                😎
                                😡
                                👍
                                👎