Universal's NEW Classic Monsters Series

[belloq87]

Universal has handed the keys to the Classic Monsters kingdom over to Blumhouse, and their first order of business will be Leigh Whannell's THE INVISIBLE MAN.

‘Invisible Man’ Movie Sets Director – Variety

Pertinent section: "Upcoming titles for Universal’s new monster strategy will be rooted in horror, with no restrictions on budget, tone, or rating, and no expectation that they will exist as part of a shared universe."

I'm very intrigued. I like Whannell as a writer and director (he clearly has a deep love for the genre), and I'm extremely glad that Universal appears to have abandoned their "Let's treat the Monsters as our superheroes!" notion.

 

[Mad Dog]

Budget price 'World' for the new park. "Invisible Man World" . "Invisible Man,Invisible Attractions, Invisible buildings, Invisible shows, Invisible infrastructure".....Not just low cost, but no cost, no screenz. ...Absolutely Epic....Use your imagination...:thumbsup::toast:...no way Woodbury & UC could mess that up.

 

[JungleSkip]

Still not sold that these can work as straight horror films in this day and age, but I hope this works out for them

 

[Magic-Man]

Huh. Hopefully this works, for Fantastic World's sake.

 

[belloq87]

Still not sold that these can work as straight horror films in this day and age, but I hope this works out for them

If they can be made for a price and are quality pictures, I think the horror approach can work fine. Blumhouse knows how to make money, and the horror genre itself has arguably never been as widely popular as it has been in the last few years. Big studios and independents alike have released some really good (and profitable) stuff.

I would note that the phrase they're using is "rooted in horror," and I think that keeps the door open to a variety of tones and styles.

 

[Viator]

Giving Blumhouse the keys to this, makes so much sense.

They have proven their worth, multiple times to Universal, and have created some great products with them. And with how they're looking to handle this, makes me giddy for what they can do going forward.

Just as long as they keep what made the Universal Monsters iconic in their ways, and I'm completely goood.

 

[JungleSkip]

If they can be made for a price and are quality pictures, I think the horror approach can work fine. Blumhouse knows how to make money, and the horror genre itself has arguably never been as widely popular as it has been in the last few years. Big studios and independents alike have released some really good (and profitable) stuff.

I would note that the phrase they're using is "rooted in horror," and I think that keeps the door open to a variety of tones and styles.

Sure, Horror is bigger than it may have ever been, but I'm not convinced these characters fit into the *type* of horror that's popular right now. I also think there's an issue with them being so culturally pervasive that few will find them scary.

I hope it works, and Blumhouse are probably the only ones who can make it work. But we'll see.

 

[belloq87]

Just as long as they keep what made the Universal Monsters iconic in their ways, and I'm completely goood.

Atmosphere and mood. Lots of it.

Sure, Horror is bigger than it may have ever been, but I'm not convinced these characters fit into the *type* of horror that's popular right now. I also think there's an issue with them being so culturally pervasive that few will find them scary.

I hope it works, and Blumhouse are probably the only ones who can make it work. But we'll see.

Universal's already tried the action movie approach, so trying to go back to horror seems like the only avenue they have.

 

[JungleSkip]

Universal's already tried the action movie approach, so trying to go back to horror seems like the only avenue they have.

"Tried" is giving that movie a lot of credit. I still think adventure movies are the way to go in the long run, and maybe these movies will have elements of that. But THE MUMMY 2017 was just born out of incompetence

 

[Viator]

Atmosphere and mood. Lots of it.

Agreed, also to keep the films narrative driven and in the veins of tragedies (Frankenstein, Wolfman, and Invisible Man can work real well into these aspects).

The Universal Monsters have a great root in the past. If they can translate that towards modern storytelling, we'll be in for a treat.

 

[zg44]

Pretty much what many (including me) had been calling for even before Mummy came out...

By unrestricted budget requirements, I assume they mean they'll hear pitches for low budget productions, which they had ruled out in the past. The original goal of creating a series of big budget spectacles as part of a "Dark Universe"/cinematic universe was always an unrealistic goal. Everyone wants to mimic Marvel's success, but only Marvel (and DC) have the ability to guarantee that.


Handing this over to Blum and producing a series of profitable, lower budget monster movies always made the most sense. Any of the Universal monsters can be successful at the right budget point (most probably under $10-15 million, some a bit higher).


You can always add elements that connect various monsters later after some successes. That's what DC will do for their superheroes after a couple more strong solo movies.

 

[OhHaiInternet95]

Still not sold that these can work as straight horror films in this day and age, but I hope this works out for them

If they were able to make Dracula and Frankenstein scary at HHN 19, it's doable.

 

[zg44]

You can still make action oriented Monster movies, but the budgets need to be modest. The era of $100-150 million budgeted action pictures of Mummy, Van Helsing, Dracula, and Wolfman should be over.


Basically, Universal is targeting two sets of audiences here:

1) For an action-oriented movie of one of Mummy, Van Helsing, or Wolfman, you can probably earn $200-400 million in global box office. Budget should be at most $50 million.

2) For a horror-oriented movie of any of the monsters, you can probably earn $100-250 million in global box office. Budget should be under $30 million, and some of them should be at most $5-10 million for the least well-known.


After you make a bunch of successful, profitable movies, then you can discuss maybe trying crossover elements or shared universe elements. But get some successes for the group before bringing monsters together.

 

[Scott W.]

You can still make action oriented Monster movies, but the budgets need to be modest. The era of $100-150 million budgeted action pictures of Mummy, Van Helsing, Dracula, and Wolfman should be over.


Basically, Universal is targeting two sets of audiences here:

1) For an action-oriented movie of one of Mummy, Van Helsing, or Wolfman, you can probably earn $200-400 million in box office. Budget should be at most $50 million.

2) For a horror-oriented movie of any of the monsters, you can probably earn $100-250 million in box office. Budget should be under $30 million, and some of them should be at most $5-10 million for the least well-known.


After you make a bunch of successful, profitable movies, then you can discuss maybe trying crossover elements or shared universe elements. But get some successes for the group before bringing monsters together.

Excellent points. Some of the most successful horror films this millennium have had tiny budgets. This allows the director to have full creative control without producers and studios wanting to have some form of input.

 

[belloq87]

"Tried" is giving that movie a lot of credit. I still think adventure movies are the way to go in the long run, and maybe these movies will have elements of that. But THE MUMMY 2017 was just born out of incompetence

I mean, I'm going back farther than just the Cruise Mummy. We've had three action-adventure MUMMYs from before that (one of which I will defend as a good movie), plus VAN HELSING (which is not a good movie) and DRACULA UNTOLD (also not a good movie).

The only "horror" attempt they've made was 2010's THE WOLFMAN, which I actually like a lot, but was hamstrung by production problems, reshoots, and a terrible marketing campaign.

I do not disagree, though, that an "adventure" flavor (rather than outright "action") could make sense for some of the Monsters. Adventure and horror don't have to be mutually exclusive. CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON would be a great fit for an adventure-horror tone, for example.

 

[JungleSkip]

I mean, I'm going back farther than just the Cruise Mummy. We've had three action-adventure MUMMYs from before that (one of which I will defend as a good movie), plus VAN HELSING (which is not a good movie) and DRACULA UNTOLD (also not a good movie).

The first 2 Mummy movies are good, and they definitely worked. Still bummed out about Van Helsing. Should have been good, but man did they bungle that one.

 

[belloq87]

VAN HELSING botched Dracula and the Wolf Man (who isn't even really the Wolf Man... just a generic werewolf). I think its handling of the Frankenstein Monster is the best element, even though it's more a version of the novel character than it is an updated version of Universal's original iteration.

Pretty awful effects work throughout, too. Not as horrendous as THE MUMMY RETURNS' Playstation-quality Scorpion King monster, but still awful!

 

[jseal777]

I am so damn excited. The fact that the guy who did Upgrade is spearheading this gives me all the faith I need to believe that this is going to work.




*Old Hulk launch sequence plays in my mind*

 

[WAJAS]

This is the best course of action IMO. I just hope they don’t make it ‘too’ horror. I’d love to see a Universal Classic Monsters Land in the new Park, and an extremely horror focused movie won’t work in a theme park.

 

[Ridgepole]

I'm liking the concept and direction.