Universal Monsters getting rebooted

[palitoy]

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.

I agree on Burton, he has it in him to do good but I'd also worry he'd camp it up.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^Yeah, see Dark Shadows. You never know which Burton you're going to get. If you could get the Sleepy Hollow Burton, that'd be great.

Chris

[palitoy]

^Yeah, see Dark Shadows. You never know which Burton you're going to get. If you could get the Sleepy Hollow Burton, that'd be great.

Chris

Oh Dark Shadows kind of made me sad, way too broad a comedy.

My daughter LOVED it though, so maybe he's on to something?

[madmarva]

I hope with the Frankenstein, Dracula and Wolfman remakes aren't strictly origin stories or even reworkings of the novels with Dracula and Frankenstein. While I love those stories, I've seen and read so many versions that I'd like to see something in their spirit but still new. Flashbacks could handle the nuts and bolts of how they came to be.

[MIB41]

The more I think about it, the more of a challenge this is likely going to be. While the Mummy has been the most profitable character since the golden age, it's also the most saturated. The last Brendan Frasier installment came out in 2008, which was met with a lukewarm reception here, but did much better overseas. So you have to wonder if the association will be almost instinctive for general audiences. Plus if these movies become too derivative of the Marvel formula, that runs it's own risks too. These movies can't come off so obvious in direction that they're plodding in predictability. The writers and directors will have to really bring their "A" game to this. If Universal tries to do this with trendy directors and over stylized concepts to sell toys, this will die a quick death. I also don't think these movies need a brand name cast so much as quality actors who can sell the rhythms of each character believably. Plus the characters are iconic enough. If they put gossip column actors in these roles, then their fame compromises the reality they're trying to sell. So it's going to be tough. If the studio were to ask me what I wanted, I would probably have an easier time telling them what I don't want. And maybe therein lies the secret to getting this right. If you look over the entire body of work by Universal, they had about 18 solid years in the 30's and 40's getting hit after hit with these monster movies. They've mostly been on a 60 year drought since. Yes, they've had some honorable mentions in that span, but nothing to grab the imagination of the public again like they did that first go around.

[enyawd72]

If you look over the entire body of work by Universal, they had about 18 solid years in the 30's and 40's getting hit after hit with these monster movies.

Unfortunately, a lot of that had to do with Karloff, Lugosi, and Chaney. Universal had a stable of horror stars that the public loved. That perfect combination of actors and roles is going to be very, very hard to recreate. You also have to take into account Jack Pierce's enormous contribution to establishing the "look" of Universal's monsters. To do this project right, they will need to find just the right actors and get Rick Baker on board to maintain a consistency of character designs throughout the entire series.
I still stand by my original statement that they could use the Wolfman remake as the starting point. Resurrect Lawrence Talbot in classic, grand Universal style. I think I can hear those grave robbers sneaking into the Talbot mausoleum even now...
"They buried him with a silver handled cane alright...it's worth a fortune! We'll be able to see real good too, what with the full moon and all!"

[Earth 2 Chris]

^That scene is one of the best in any Universal horror film. Certainly the most atmospheric!

Chris

[enyawd72]

^That scene is one of the best in any Universal horror film. Certainly the most atmospheric!

Chris

I'm with you buddy! That movie has the absolute best Wolfman transformation scene too...the one from the hospital bed remember?

[Hedji]

That scene scared me when I was little. So creepy. And I remember watching it on a Super8 reel, projected onto a bed sheet.

[madmarva]

Yeah, the first half of Frankenstein meets Wolfman is really good. The Wolfman's attack on the Bobby and Talbot and Maleva traveling in the wagon. Even the impetus to look for Dr. Frankenstein, trying to find a cure for lycanthropy, works in a comic-book way.

As for the cast, universal had great stock players in Dwight Fry, Lionel Atwill and others who helped the films work. As great as Lugosi was as Dracula, I love his Ygor and though he has just a few his scenes in the Wolfman, they are really good.

If it were me I think I might go with a TV series and run it in the vein of "Once Upon a Time." Then you have your own world with its own rules. The tone of the series could have more range from episode to episode, and you could build faster.

I'm just skeptical of the monsters being such huge box office hits for the idea to get far enough for a rally type movie, which seems to be the end game rather than a last resort as they were for Universal.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I'm with you buddy! That movie has the absolute best Wolfman transformation scene too...the one from the hospital bed remember?

Oh yeah, that is probably his best transformation. And the Wolfman makeup looks it's best in Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man as well. Despite the last hour editing taking all of Lugosi's lines out, and dropping the Ygor as Monster subplot, the movie is a fine sequel to The Wolf Man and Ghost of Frankenstein.

Chris

[MIB41]

Yeah, the first half of Frankenstein meets Wolfman is really good. The Wolfman's attack on the Bobby and Talbot and Maleva traveling in the wagon. Even the impetus to look for Dr. Frankenstein, trying to find a cure for lycanthropy, works in a comic-book way.

As for the cast, universal had great stock players in Dwight Fry, Lionel Atwill and others who helped the films work. As great as Lugosi was as Dracula, I love his Ygor and though he has just a few his scenes in the Wolfman, they are really good.

Legosi's career was truly an interesting (if not frustrating) one to watch. Personally I thought he never did a finer job than he did with Igor. It's the only character where he truly disappeared into the role. His character's voice had enough distinction to it, that it helped mask an otherwise very distinct delivery that really sabbatoged other roles. I liked him in Dracula, but his acting in the part was not really the performance so much as his vocal quality which was his naturally. I always laughed at his claims of superiority as an actor for passing up the Frankenstein role. If anything, history was spared the miscue because he had no shock quality to him when he emceed the part later in life. Plus in the early posters that showed him as the monster, he has no heavy eyelids. That's because Karloff was the one who suggested that, because he felt his eyes were too "alive" without it. He was right.

But if there's anything oddly missing from Legosi's career, it was no direct sequel to his biggest hit, Dracula. That seems utterly bizarre, if not downright unexplainable. In an era and genre where sequels ruled, his most iconic character was always past over. It was an odd result given he took on other roles that played to that fame. I have to believe Hollywood left some considerable box office returns on the table with that oversight. But who knows? Maybe his rejection of the Frankenstein role labeled him a difficult actor and did him considerable damage once the industry saw the scale and scope of Karloff's introduction. So looking past Dracula might have been the Studio's pound of flesh exacted against Legosi for his arrogance and loss of money his rejection cost the studio when they had to reboot the production of Frankenstein?

I think to do a modern performance of Dracula is going to require a quality that is not so directly linked to Legosi's Hungarian accent. It's interpretation, while iconic, is so closely link to camp portrayals, it would be nearly impossible to pull off a serious interpretation today. Van Helsing was a perfect example. That had to be the worst Dracula I had ever seen in a film. His accent was so bad, I could easily close my eyes and see a cartoon coming from it. So the treatment for Dracula will probably need the most tinkering from the golden era to meet with modern standards.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Yeah, John Carradine in "Billy the Kid Meets Dracula" was more convincing than the effete rock star version in Van Helsing. Ugh.

Lugosi was paid to appear in "Dracula's Daughter", but that movie went through several rewrites and starts and finishes along the way. It was VERY loosely based on Stoker's short story, "Dracula's Guest" which was essentially an excised chapter of Stoker's novel. Since we only see Dracula's dead body as his daughter burns it in the beginning of the film, I kind of understand why he wasn't in it. But at least he did get paid.

Of course, Lugosi made an unofficial sequel, "Return of the Vampire" for Columbia. It's as close to a Dracula sequel as you'll get, and apparently Universal thought so, since they sued Columbia over it.

It is a head scratcher as to why they didn't make a direct sequel to Dracula. It may have been a combination of Lugosi's somewhat difficult nature, the language barrier, and the changing mores in Hollywood. Lugosi and Karloff's "The Black Cat" and "The Raven" both pushed the censors to their limits, which is why there are several years in the late 30s with no Universal Horrors. This may have stalled any progress on getting Dracula up and biting again. By the time they came back with "Son of Frankenstein", maybe they figured that ship had sailed.

Chris

[enyawd72]

One of the key ingredients in Universal's horror formula was the distinctly European quality the films had. That's one of the things I love about the Wolfman remake. Three of the leads are British, and being filmed on an actual English estate gave it that same feeling to me. Even Danny Elfman's score has a great old-world gypsy sound to it.

[Werewolf]

Bela Lugosi was a better actor than many give him credit for. His best work, outside of Dracula, is often over shadowed if not buried by all the B movies he did late in his career when he was in declining health. Just check out Black Cat (1934) (which he was the hero and Karloff the villain), Murders in the Rue Morgue, White Zombie and the Raven.