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

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

If they get behind the Valiant for example they don't have to build chemistry, it's already there between the different characters. Also i doubt the monsters have such a giant brand recognition as belonging to universal studios.

[simbob4000]

If they get behind the Valiant for example they don't have to build chemistry, it's already there between the different characters. Also i doubt the monsters have such a giant brand recognition as belonging to universal studios.

What? Their versions of the monsters are just the most iconic versions of them, and some of them are owned by Universal. They also already crossed them over back in the '40s.

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

What? Their versions of the monsters are just the most iconic versions of them, and some of them are owned by Universal. They also already crossed them over back in the '40s.

Anybody cannot do a Captian America movie. Anybody can do an amazing Dracula movie.

[MrHashasheen]

What? Their versions of the monsters are just the most iconic versions of them, and some of them are owned by Universal. They also already crossed them over back in the '40s.

This.

It's not a bad idea in theory to try and go for a Monsters Universe franchise again, especially since they won't have to deal with comic book problems like they might have with Marvel.

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

This.

It's not a bad idea in theory to try and go for a Monsters Universe franchise again, especially since they won't have to deal with comic book problems like they might have with Marvel.

If they don't aim high it could be fun. Dracula Untold had the problem that they did not dare to make Dracula evil enough so we ended with something really weird. The Monsters are not well suited to be the next Avengers.

[Angilasman]

I'm actually a bigger monster fan than I am a superhero fan (don't hurt me!), but I'm not keen on them just turning the monsters into superhero analogues. I'd rather let them be monsters.

I'm more excited for Uni's Pacific Rim, King Kong, and Jurassic Park films, as giant monsters are my favorite and they all seem headed in the right direction. I'm wary of them trying to turn Dracula into the new Iron Man.

[Cyke]

Anybody cannot do a Captian America movie. Anybody can do an amazing Dracula movie.

It's true, anybody can do a Dracula movie, and there are so many versions of it. But the most well known version remains the Universal version, and that's where they're coming from. I'm not saying I agree with their tactics or marketing strategy, but their version of Dracula to this day still has the most merchandising to it. Twilight, Lestat, etc. come and go.

Besides, these crossovers, as was pointed out earlier, worked for them before, so they were ahead of the game. Even Monster Squad from the 80s still sees occasional airplay on cable TV.

[Powerboy]

If they get behind the Valiant for example they don't have to build chemistry, it's already there between the different characters. Also i doubt the monsters have such a giant brand recognition as belonging to universal studios.

I'm not familiar with "the Valiant" but I was a big fan of those cheesy 1930's- 1940's monster movies.

I'm not sure they would have the appeal of the current super hero genre though I suppose they could do a huge rewrite and make them sort of dark heroes.

As someone pointed out, one problem is anybody can do a Dracula, Frankenstein, werewolf movie (though I suppose only they can do one that is specifically Lawrence Talbot). I think Universal owns the Creature from the Black Lagoon.

That reminds me, back in the 1980's they did a movie called "The Monster Squad" which was in turn had the same name as a 1970's live action Saturday morning show of the same name. The monsters were the villains except for THE Monster (the Frankenstein Monster) and the Wolfman who, in human form, was on the good side.

It's not a bad idea to possibly do a movie each leading up to a huge crossover. The real trick would be how to do it.

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

It's true, anybody can do a Dracula movie, and there are so many versions of it. But the most well known version remains the Universal version, and that's where they're coming from. I'm not saying I agree with their tactics or marketing strategy, but their version of Dracula to this day still has the most merchandising to it. Twilight, Lestat, etc. come and go.

Besides, these crossovers, as was pointed out earlier, worked for them before, so they were ahead of the game. Even Monster Squad from the 80s still sees occasional airplay on cable TV.

There are really obscure movies that show up every now and then in cable. When did they came out and how much money they made historically?

[Mister Mets]

Marvel's been smart to offer genre diversity with the films. Iron Man is high tech action. Hulk's a moster. Thor's fantasy. Guardians of the Galaxy is space opera.

Valiant has the same opportunity. Archer & Armstrong is action comedy. XO Man of War is scifi. Shadowman is horror.

The Universal horror films don't really offer the same diversity, so there is a strong chance of oversaturation.

Plus, while superhero crossovers have been acclaimed relative to other work in the form (Avengers the film got awesome reviews, the most famous Batman comic ends with a showdown against Superman) the same isn't really true of horror crossovers. Crossovers arguably don't fit the genre, as it takes a lot of the mystery and menace away when it's not about someone's first interactions with the supernatural.

[Powerboy]

There are really obscure movies that show up every now and then in cable. When did they came out and how much money they made historically?

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.

[Vic Vega]

Marvel's been smart to offer genre diversity with the films. Iron Man is high tech action. Hulk's a moster. Thor's fantasy. Guardians of the Galaxy is space opera.

Valiant has the same opportunity. Archer & Armstrong is action comedy. XO Man of War is scifi. Shadowman is horror.

The Universal horror films don't really offer the same diversity, so there is a strong chance of oversaturation.

Plus, while superhero crossovers have been acclaimed relative to other work in the form (Avengers the film got awesome reviews, the most famous Batman comic ends with a showdown against Superman) the same isn't really true of horror crossovers. Crossovers arguably don't fit the genre, as it takes a lot of the mystery and menace away when it's not about someone's first interactions with the supernatural.

You could argue that Frankenstein is Steampunk Sci-Fi, Dracula is Gothic Horror and the Mummy could either be pulp action adventure or straight horror depending on who the protagonist was-the Mummy itself or the adventurer who runs afoul of him.

I sortof hope the Universal movies are smart enough to go with a heroic Frankenstein, much like recent comics have.

You could have a heroic Frankenstein and his Bride fighting the other Universal monsters.

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

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.

You could make good movies, but with not owning the intellectual property and trying to have a shared universe with these characters that will appeal to a lot of people... I pity the sucker that is in charge, some suits working on Wall Street that never cared about movies ordered is my guess.

[Vic Vega]

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.

Bride of Frankenstein was pretty well regarded, irrc.

And I'm not sure how well stuff like the Invisible Man or the Mummy was received in its day.

You are right about the rest though.

[simbob4000]

Anybody cannot do a Captian America movie. Anybody can do an amazing Dracula movie.

Anyone could do some type of Captain America character. And Universal can stop people from using Dracula stuff that unique to their version. Their versions of the characters are also the versions most people think of when they think of those characters. When people think of Dracula, they're thinking of Universal's Dracula.

Universal also has serials that they could tap into like The Phantom Creeps if they wanted, and stuff like Darkman that they could probably throw into the mix. I say probably because I'm not sure who owns it.