Universal Monsters getting rebooted

[Hedji]

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

[Earth 2 Chris]

^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

[palitoy]

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.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^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

[enyawd72]

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

[palitoy]

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.

[Hedji]

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

[palitoy]

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.

[Hedji]

^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.

[Earth 2 Chris]

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

[MIB41]

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.

[madmarva]

^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.

[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.

[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

[madmarva]

What would you think of Andy Serkis as a mo-cap Frankenstein or Wolfman?