What are your thoughts on Universal's plans to revive its classic monsters?

Universal has announced they are going 'Avengers' on their classic monsters, creating solo films that are interconnected, followed by pairing ups of some of our favorite classic monsters. According to an article on variety:

What are your thoughts?

 

My thoughts are, complete the restoration of the remaining sequels and release them on blu-ray just as they did the originals a few years ago. Once that is announced/completed, I'll consider watching these newer films that could never be half as good as the originals.

 

So, Dracula Untold is NOT a part of this re-vamp? Great! Looking forward to these monsters returning in a big way.

 

Guided by the same executives who tore down Soundstage 28 just in time for Halloween, I'm sure. They've announced this a few times over the years now haven't they?

If Dracula Untold, Wolf Man, Van Helsing and The Mummy/Scorpion King series are the best they can come up with then they're not going to get me in through the theater doors. And I'm sure they're happy, in their own fashion, with these films so I'm not expecting anything less.

Creature From the Black Lagoon reboot has been in dire straights for what over a decade now? I just can't take any of it seriously.

 

The tone will be all wrong unless they can get a good director that understands those classic horror movies. I saw that Tom Cruise might be interested in The Mummy. To me, that sounds like action movie like those previous Mummy movies.

 

These reboots will be pure product, just like del Toro's The Wolfman. By all accounts that one seemed to start development as a legitimate attempt to make a classic horror film. But the suits quickly took over (as evidenced by Mark Romanek's departure and the decision to emphasize cartoony CGI instead of Rick Baker's effects). I expect more of the same from the next wave--action-oriented nonsense geared for the ADD generation. As usual, I'm lining up with Buck. Give us the 2nd wave of classics on Blu-ray (it's disgraceful that Son of Frankenstein never seems to get the stacked special edition it deserves). I'm much more interested in them than anything new the studio might churn out.

 

Is Wolfman bad? I haven't seen it but the cast looks good and the director is good as well.

 

Parts of it are pretty interesting, and the big budget is apparent. But a lot of it looks like WOLFMAN--THE VIDEO GAME. And the ending setpiece is so ridiculous that it boggles the mind. Overall it's a miss. Sad, since you can see the squandered potential.

 

Yes. I would not recommend it.

Pretty much agreed, although you are more generous than I. The potential was there, but wow was it wasted.

 

I liked The Wolfman.

I know its not saying much but it's definitely the best of the ones that have been mentioned in this thread.

 

As of right now 18 people are either wanting to see or willing to see the reboots. And 17 people are unwilling to see them. That's the internet for you.

With Crimson Peak flopping in the theaters for Universal, and more or less presented as a return to classic form by a director well known for his appreciation of the Universal Monsters, that makes me wonder in what direction they will take these. Especially with this announcement only a month later.

I'm not certain what direction they could go in that would interest me. A straight up remake probably wouldn't do anyone any good and a modern revision would be so different from the classics it's a wonder they'd try to associate them at all. So what should Universal do? They have these iconic properties...

 

Those Wolfman comments are discouraging. But I'll see it one day.

I want to see Crimson Peak. I didn't know it was flop. I didn't watch any trailers but I'll watch just about anything from the director.

Maybe they should make new Universal Monsters. At least try a new group of 2 to 4. I've been playing around with the idea of a snow or hidden / lost city monster. Kind of like a Yeti. There are supposed to be creative people in Hollywood. I'm sure they could come up with a few new monsters for Universal that have similar themes to the old ones.

 

I struggle with remakes of films that are perfect to begin with. You've all heard the stories of people fainting when they saw Karloff's Monster for the first time. It's a different time and audiences aren't shocked by anything anymore, especially sympathetic antagonists such as the classic Universal Monsters. I don't think these films can be modernized, which is why the Hammer films and Bram Stoker's Dracula still hold up.

 

Bram Stokers Dracula proves that these films can be remade and still become timeless classics. They just have to commit to it. Like fire your entire special effects department commitment. Copola had a vision that was worth pursuing more than trying to cator to trends.

 

Universal may be heavily courting Angelina Jolie according to The Hollywood Reporter:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/will-by-sea-kill-hollywood-842647

Which could be interesting, if true. She has both the action background and the "artistry" background to maybe make both sides happy. I kinda doubt they want her to direct, and I kinda doubt she'll be The Bride, so will she play The Doctor maybe? More perhaps everyone's favorite:

Spoiler

They don't believe me? Fine, I wash me hands of it. Let you all be murdered in your beds!

 

I couldn't disagree with a statement any more vehemently. I hate Coppola's Dracula and can't bear to watch it. It's visually amazing but ridiculously ill-conceived and atrociously miscast. Everyone focuses on Keanu and Ryder--but Hopkins and Oldman are just as bad in my opinion. So campy. You know a film has acting issues when Cary Elwes is one of the more authentic performers.

In terms of conception, it's Anne Rice-inspired sexy vampire tripe at its most egregious. Dracula has ZERO to do with love and romance. Is the film superficially one of the more faithful adaptations? In terms of checking off plot points, yes. But what's the point of plot fidelity if you completely alter the nature of the entire story? The BBC miniseries with Louis Jourdan is much more faithful in terms of tone.

 

Interesting Shape, I haven't heard anyone state that they disliked Oldman's performance before. I agree with the rest of the performances, but the film just reminds me of a typical Christopher Lee Hammer film.

 

I don't think he's ALL bad. But there's a ridiculousness to the Castle Dracula scenes that I can never survive. People jag Lugosi for chewing the scenery, but Bela is positively restrained compared to Oldman. I recall Oldman dialing it back a bit later in the movie. But I never make it that far. He's practically winking at the camera like Leslie Nielsen in a Naked Gun movie.

 

I can't say I like the film either. It feels all over the place and the characters are rather forgettable. I revisited it this year and can hardly remember anything that's how forgettable I found it.

 

Frenetic is certainly a word I'd use to describe this film. It has just as many amazing moments (the female vampires keeping Keanu weak and Gary Oldman's various transformations) as it does terrible ones (such as any scene in which Keanu and/or Winona speak). The castle, the set pieces and ambience are all perfect.