Frankenstein, Dracula, Wolfman now action/adventure stars

[Raph's Girl]

Seriously. Universal is now doing this shared universe thing like Marvel is doing. They're now placing all the horror monsters as action/adventure stars. Horror genre is no more for them. Future films about em will be set in modern times. They are totally being reimagined. :ohwell:

http://comicbook.com/2014/11/14/unversal-monsters-to-be-taken-out-of-horror-genre-and-reimagined/

[Wildcat]

Hmm sounds kinda cool. That new Dracula looked interesting but haven't seen it.

[turtlefanforever]

idk about this. But I love when I see them in some of my favorite cartoons. Alvin and the chipmunks meet the wolfman and Frankenstein were great. Scooby doo, ect. I want more of that

[Sumac]

Awesome!
I don't think making them action stars instead of horror stars is a bad thing. Horrors lost their appeal lately and it's hard to create something new. While, giving the right execution, Dracula, Frankenstein and WolfMan could've become awesome action supernatural movies.

Just don't make'em like Van Helsing and we golden.

[pennydreadful]

I'll be over in the corner with my classic Universal Monsters box set, thankyouverymuch. :sweatdro:

[The Stryker]

Let's be completely honest here.

Who the hell could possibly still be scared by Frankenstein at this point? Make them alittle more action oriented. Who cares?

[ObiWanFan4life]

Let's be completely honest here.

Who the hell could possibly still be scared by Frankenstein at this point? Make them alittle more action oriented. Who cares?

Can't be worse than the one with Aaron Eckhart earlier this year.

[The Stryker]

Can't be worse than the one with Aaron Eckhart earlier this year.

Exactly. Even before then the characters have been dragged through the mud on increasingly sh*tty projects. To act like this is the first time they've ever been reimagined and to get all "ugh" about it over a bare bones concept thrown out in an article is pretty dumb IMO.

This idea atleast seems like they want to put money and effort into it. I'm willing to give it a chance.

[Mr._Mutant_Man]

Frankenstein, Dracula, and The Mummy were remade by Hammer previously, and those movies were awesome. Bram Stoker's Dracula and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein from the 90s were pretty good, too. It isn't like good remakes haven't happened before.

Even the 1930s Frankenstein is technically a remake because there was a silent version before that one.

The Universal monsters already had a shared universe back in the 40s and 50s. That's nothing new for those characters.

[Candy Kappa]

I personally think most of the characters fits better within the settings they came from, since modern times often takes away the mystery and allure of the characters, like Dracula 2000... Or 3000 for that matter.


Even the 1930s Frankenstein is technically a remake because there was a silent version before that one.

The 1910 short movie is very different then the Boris Karloff 1931 movie, and then there is the 1920 Il mostro di Frankenstein. So not as much as a remake, but a different adaptation of the book.

[Sumac]

So not as much as a remake, but a different adaptation of the book.
I believe, word "remake" should be limited only to projects that actually remake something. I don't think calling different adaptations remakes of each other is the right thing.

I have broken quite a few spears over it during discussion of the new Judge Dredd movie on another forum. For some reason it was really hard to make people understand that it was not remake of the Judge Dredd movie from 1995...

[Candy Kappa]

I believe, word "remake" should be limited only to projects that actually remake something. I don't think calling different adaptations remakes of each other is the right thing.

I have broken quite a few spears over it during discussion of the new Judge Dredd movie on another forum. For some reason it was really hard to make people understand that it was not remake of the Judge Dredd movie from 1995...

I feel very much the same on the subject.

[pennydreadful]

I personally think most of the characters fits better within the settings they came from, since modern times often takes away the mystery and allure of the characters, like Dracula 2000... Or 3000 for that matter.

Yeah, if you take away the gothic romanticism of the setting, it changes the dynamic of the character too much. Frankenstein hasn't been about the scares for a very long time - what makes these monsters popular and enduring is the loneliness, the way they're misunderstood, tormented by their own natures and forces beyond their control.

I simply don't think that taking these guys and trying to cram them into the Marvel movie format is going to work favorably.

FWIW, they tried doing this as action/adventure already in Van Helsing, and people as a rule think that it sucked.

Eh, whatevs - I've still got the originals; me bitching about The Gill-man being turned into an action hero ain't gonna change a thing. :ohwell:

[The Stryker]

Monster Squad worked pretty well.

[pennydreadful]

That's because Monster Squad treated the monsters as monsters - not action heroes.

Anyway, we'll agree to disagree - we've both got different feelings on the matter and I don't think either of our viewpoints are going to change, regardless of what the other says.

[The Stryker]

That's because Monster Squad treated the monsters as monsters - not action heroes.

Anyway, we'll agree to disagree - we've both got different feelings on the matter and I don't think either of our viewpoints are going to change, regardless of what the other says.

You're acting like I'm trying to argue with you.

I'm just saying that the characters have been around so long at this point that they probably could work as anything. I'm cool with giving it a chance if it looks fun.

Plus is it even confirmed that they're the 'heroes' of the movie? Whatever either way but I thought all we had was very early talk of the movies going into production.

[Candy Kappa]

Yeah, as a action/adventure movie, they can take the monsters in different directions, either as the main protagonists or antagonists.

But, I'd love to see them be tackled again in a more horror/suspense movie, Frankenstein's Monster is after a creature brought to life, made out of several human body parts. They don't need to do the now stock bucket head with screws in his neck.

FWIW, they tried doing this as action/adventure already in Van Helsing, and people as a rule think that it sucked.:

I did enjoy some of the things they did in Van Helsing though, loved the way Dracula was portrayed and the werewolf transformation was pretty nifty and creepy. But I hated the changes they did to Van Helsing himself, but the only portrayal of the good doctor in my opinion is from the 1931 movie; Edward Van Sloan. To me Van Helsing isn't some action hero guy, but what he was in the book.

And hopefully next iteration of him, he is played by a redhead ;)

[Leo656]

I'd honestly more than anything like to see any or all of them portrayed as sincerely, "straight" horror, instead of the "wink-nudge" way they've often been done. And I'm convinced someone could do it, it's just a risk since as others pointed out, we're in kind of a cynical place again towards horror movies and a "straight" interpretation might not play well with the current audience. I still think someone could pull it off if they were really committed, though. Like, I like the idea of Dracula more than I like most of the movies. I think there's something sincerely horrific there that films have barely touched on. Same with Frankenstein. But they've been around so long everyone's familiar with them to some degree, which lessens the "horror" somewhat.

So I wouldn't be against a re-imagining, but would prefer to see them re-imagined in a way that actually tries to bring them back to the core and make them scary again. That's something that's only been half-heartedly attempted because everyone who makes the modern films always makes the supposedly "horrific" characters too sympathetic and likable.

I think this project is going to end-up being a "too-hip, too-trendy" cash-grab that makes a bunch of money over five years or so, and then everyone will regret it soon after. I'm not even against the idea of a shared universe, but it merely sounds as if they're going the "Big Dumb Fun" route so many studios are going down these days. We'll see.

[The Stryker]

I'd honestly more than anything like to see any or all of them portrayed as sincerely, "straight" horror, instead of the "wink-nudge" way they've often been done. And I'm convinced someone could do it, it's just a risk since as others pointed out, we're in kind of a cynical place again towards horror movies and a "straight" interpretation might not play well with the current audience. I still think someone could pull it off if they were really committed, though. Like, I like the idea of Dracula more than I like most of the movies. I think there's something sincerely horrific there that films have barely touched on. Same with Frankenstein. But they've been around so long everyone's familiar with them to some degree, which lessens the "horror" somewhat.

So I wouldn't be against a re-imagining, but would prefer to see them re-imagined in a way that actually tries to bring them back to the core and make them scary again. That's something that's only been half-heartedly attempted because everyone who makes the modern films always makes the supposedly "horrific" characters too sympathetic and likable.


You can't do that though. The cat is out of the bag and has run around the block twenty times on all of these concepts. MAYBE you can still do Black Lagoon straight but it's way too late to make Dracula and Frankenstein legit scary.

They're cereal mascots, puppets, animated movie characters, A song that Stallone sings in Rhinestone, MONSTER MASH! It's over for that kind of thing.

[Leo656]

I don't know, I don't entirely believe that. If Batman can be serious again after Adam West, then anything's possible.

It would definitely only be partly up to the filmmakers, though. Some things only work in a certain time and place and we're in the "snarky deconstruction of horror" phase right now. If the audience didn't willingly "play along", then no, it probably wouldn't work. But I definitely think it still could. There'd just have to be some pretty specific circumstances.

[The Stryker]

I don't know, I don't entirely believe that. If Batman can be serious again after Adam West, then anything's possible.

It would definitely only be partly up to the filmmakers, though. Some things only work in a certain time and place and we're in the "snarky deconstruction of horror" phase right now. If the audience didn't willingly "play along", then no, it probably wouldn't work. But I definitely think it still could. There'd just have to be some pretty specific circumstances.

The horror genre is WAY different from Superhero stuff. Its hard to scare people with the same thing more than once. There's a reason they made Aliens into a more actiony deal.

The more you see the monster the less scary it gets. Obviously. Look at what happened to Freddy Krueger. They tried to make him scary again with New Nightmare and no one went to see it.

The snarky horror fad passed like 10 years ago man. Its all about super serious ghost thrillers now.