Why doesn't Universal try to snatch up it's own universe instead of forcing the Monsters?

[PretenderNX01]

They would own aspects unique to their version. And what's your point? They wouldn't own Valiant either, unless they just bought them outright. They also do own their Wolfman, Mummy, and the Creature from the Black Lagoon is their character. They also own stuff like the iconic look of Frankenstein's monster.

That's the main thing: money.

Disney owns Marvel. Warner Bros owns DC Comics. Universal doesn't own Valiant or IDW or Dark Horse or anybody else. It owns it's iconic version of the monsters and giant creatures like King Kong and dino movies in Jurassic Park.

It wasn't by Universal but it was inspired by them and featured monsters as the heroes:

[electr1cgoblin]

The first Dracula movie by Universal was in 1931 which was also the year of the first Frankenstein movie. My understanding is that they were big movies and only in sequels did they become B movies. There were about two Dracula movies and four Frankenstein movies and a Wolfman movie. Then they did "Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman" which was the first crossover and had a big finale fight between the Monster and the werewolf. There were then two more movies with those two and Dracula and it ended with an Abbot and Costello comedy team-up.

Even in their day, except for the first two, they were never big movies.

But that doesn't mean they could not be big movies with a great script and today's CGI. Marvel went through a lot of straight to video movies in the 1970's that made proportionately far less for the era than those Universal monster movies of the 1940's. At least, everybody in that time knew those horror movies existed and generally saw them at least once as opposed to that horrible 1970's video release Marvel stuff. So things can always get more popular.

Edit: I said 1970's. I meant very early 1990's such as the horrible Captain America movie they did around 1990, probably the worst thing they ever did. Made you long for Reb Brown in the 1970's Cap made for tv movies.

I'd say the first two Frankenstein sequels, "The Bride of" and " Son of" were both 'big movies'. Look at them again, the production values were pretty high for the times.

There basically weren't any direct Dracula sequels. "Dracula's Daughter" and "Son of Dracula" were in name only sequels, with only slight references to Dracula and no crossover stars.

And you didn't mention the Mummy series, which is often forgotten. That was definitely a case where the first film was a "big movie" but the ensuing four sequels (!) were just B stuff. Good B stuff, mind you, but B stuff nonetheless.

[Angilasman]

It wasn't by Universal but it was inspired by them and featured monsters as the heroes:

Actually, no! The Munsters was by Universal. That's why Herman has the classic Frankenstein design. Grandpa and Eddie's looks are based on Dracula and the Werewolf of London. Even the Creature From the Black Lagoon cameos as 'Uncle Gilbert.'

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

Well I think its cause by using the characters they own, they can save costs by not having to work with another company etc.

[simbob4000]

Wrong. Reshoots were done and a post credit scene was shot so that Dracula Untold would tie into the planned reboot of the Universal Monsters shared universe. There are even considering having Luke Evans reprise the role in cameos, a la exactly what Marvel did.

Yes, Universal has had these characters in a shared universe before. NO, they have never tried to use them as the collective heroes of said universe.

Yeah, this doesn't go against what I said. The movie was not intended to be part of this rebooted shared Universal Monsters universe from the start, and may or may not be added to it. Dracula Untold being part of their relaunch still seems to be up in the air, the reshot ending is just a in, but that doesn't mean they have to pick it up and go with it. The director of the movie didn't even sound sure of it being part of it, so I'm not sure why you are.

[Goggindowner]

Yeah, this doesn't go against what I said. The movie was not intended to be part of this rebooted shared Universal Monsters universe from the start, and may or may not be added to it. Dracula Untold being part of their relaunch still seems to be up in the air, the reshot ending is just a in, but that doesn't mean they have to pick it up and go with it. The director of the movie didn't even sound sure of it being part of it, so I'm not sure why you are.

Because both the producer and the president of Universal have since stated that the movie IS going to be the launch pad for the franchise. The director has only ever said they had the option, which apparently Universal took.

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

Well I think its cause by using the characters they own, they can save costs by not having to work with another company etc.

They also have to build good chemistry between a bunch of monsters.

You're right, as Marvel has shown shared universe and tons of CGI don't work at all.



You don't need to have even seen their Dracula or Frankenstein movie to know their versions of the characters. Pop cultural osmosis is strong with them. You ask someone what Frankenstein's Monster looks like, and they'll likely tell you the Universal version...even if they've never watched the movie.

Marvel had already proven that they can do it. universal did not even prove that they can make one good monster movie recently. Seventh Son was supposed to be a franchise, i guess it failed. You might know the characters, but despite the likeness that thunder can easily be stolen by someone making a 10 mil movie.

[DrNewGod]

The problem for Valiant, or any other comics company that isn't DC or Marvel, is that they have brand awareness only with comics fans (and not necessarily among majority of them). Warners/DC, Disney/Marvel and Fox/Marvel had significant brand awareness, generations deep, among a broader population with the characters they put to film (Marvel didn't try GotG until Marvel's own brand as a movie studio was established).

You could argue they tried Blade as an initial outing, which had no significant brand name at that time. However, they didn't sell it as a comics movie, they sold it as a Wesley Snipes (who had a huge action hero brand image at the time) horror-action film. So, you might be able to pull off a Valiant-verse, but only if you start slow (as Marvel did in Phase 1), and only if you have well-executed projects with actors whose individual brand can create the initial draw.

I can see why Universal's interested in exploiting the monsters. They've got at least as much built in brand-recognition that Iron Man and Captain America did. Some of them might even work in a shared-verse as anti-heroes (I really can't see it for Dracula, unless you water him down to the point of impotence), but the execution is going to have to be dang-near flawless to make it go.

[simbob4000]

Because both the producer and the president of Universal have since stated that the movie IS going to be the launch pad for the franchise. The director has only ever said they had the option, which apparently Universal took.

When have they said it's definitely part of it? That ending isn't them saying it's part of it, and I don't remember ever seeing anything where they just came out and said it was. In fact I'm pretty sure after it came out they said The Mummy and Wolfman movies would be the first of this new Universal monsters universe.

Marvel had already proven that they can do it. universal did not even prove that they can make one good monster movie recently. Seventh Son was supposed to be a franchise, i guess it failed. You might know the characters, but despite the likeness that thunder can easily be stolen by someone making a 10 mil movie.

Yeah...that was sarcasm. You said:

That does not mean what they did it would fly in this century. i assume they used practical effects instead of having CGI-fest.

Marvel has already shown that a shared universe will fly in this century. The Marvel movies also have tons of CGI, people don't really seem to care if movies are CGI-fest. Just look at Winter Soldier, that movie didn't even have good CGI much of the time.

And Universal already reboot The Mummy once before into a adventure movie, and those all did well.

[Donald]

There basically weren't any direct Dracula sequels. "Dracula's Daughter" and "Son of Dracula" were in name only sequels, with only slight references to Dracula and no crossover stars.

"Dracula's Daughter" was a direct sequel to "Dracula", picking up with Dr Van Helsing staking Bela in the basement.

[Angilasman]

"Dracula's Daughter" was a direct sequel to "Dracula", picking up with Dr Van Helsing staking Bela in the basement.

One of my favorite movies that was never made: the original, lavish idea for Dracula's Daughter, which would have involved Bela's Dracula coming back to life and facing off against the sorcerer who turned him into a vampire in the first place. To be directed by James Whale!

[Powerboy]

I'd say the first two Frankenstein sequels, "The Bride of" and " Son of" were both 'big movies'. Look at them again, the production values were pretty high for the times.

There basically weren't any direct Dracula sequels. "Dracula's Daughter" and "Son of Dracula" were in name only sequels, with only slight references to Dracula and no crossover stars.

And you didn't mention the Mummy series, which is often forgotten. That was definitely a case where the first film was a "big movie" but the ensuing four sequels (!) were just B stuff. Good B stuff, mind you, but B stuff nonetheless.

Yes I realize I erred there. "Bride" especially was HUGE and, to this day, is a part of our pop culture.

"Son of Frankenstein" was also big budget by the standards of the day.

Once you get past the first three Frankenstein movies, they no longer had Boris Karloff as the Monster (though he did play another character in a sequel).

Yes very few of the sequels had any continuity. For instance, "Son" just presented a different Dracula story with no explanation how he survived from the first movie. The next movie didn't explain how he survived in "Son" and so on. Just different takes on Dracula loosely assumed to be the same continuity somehow.

Interestingly, the Frankenstein Monster and Wolfman parts had a pretty solid continuity to the point of even taking up where the last movie left off and throwing in an explanation if there was something that didn't fit. Yet Dracula shows up in those movies with no continuity consistent with his last appearance.

I thought about mentioning the Mummy and even the Creature from the Black Lagoon, especially since Universal, I think, outright owns the Creature and because they used Dracula, the Wolfman, the Frankenstein Monster, the Mummy and the Creature in "The Monster Squad" in the 1980's.

I think this could work if they did it a bit lighthearted but with some drama and not necessarily the exact original versions. Serious version of the Saturday morning cartoon, "Frankenstein, Jr." anyone?"

Fred Saberhagen's Dracula series would be a decent basic concept too. Dracula as a guy with a set of supernatural powers and ageless and they are a race, but crosses don't effect them and they are not inherently villains. It started as a spoof of the novel "Dracula" but became a really good series of serious stories.

[Angilasman]

^I really love the continuity implied by Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein, where Dracula is basically an international supervillian, the Frankenstein Monster is his (just barely under control) muscle, and Larry Talbot is trying to hunt them down and stop them while at the same time dealing with his turning into The Wolf Man every month.

Take out Abbot and Costello and there's your new crossover movie Universal!

[simbob4000]

Universal didn't make Monster Squad, it's why they all look somewhat different in that movie.

[PretenderNX01]

Actually, no! The Munsters was by Universal. That's why Herman has the classic Frankenstein design. Grandpa and Eddie's looks are based on Dracula and the Werewolf of London. Even the Creature From the Black Lagoon cameos as 'Uncle Gilbert.'

You're right. Usually I remember who made what but that one slipped me. That would explain how they got away with Herman's look when like Young Frankenstein had to have a different one, I had assumed it was safe as parody. They really are iconic looks for the monsters, even if they might not be quite what will be used in the new ones.

Anyhow, there's our first shared monster universe and where the monsters are the protagonists.

Marvel had already proven that they can do it.

Mostly but then Hulk also happened. And we'll see how this Spidey addition goes.