The Universal Monster reboots should have gone the Marvel Netflix route

[Da Boat]

Honestly, I'm not crazy about the werewolf being a symbol of evil. But I wouldn't say I want them to be symbols of good either. My view is that the werewolf isn't so much good or evil but a force of nature. It's an animal acting on pure instinct. It runs, it hunts, it feeds with no malice but also no conscience. It's one of the more interesting things Marvel did with their Werewolf by Night title in the '70s. The Werewolf wasn't evil. You could read its thoughts and it was always stuff like "Where am I? Where is the forest? I must hunt." It adds another shade of gray to the situation which actually ups the pathos. The situation becomes not a conflict of good vs. evil but human vs. animal. It's forcing two very different creatures to occupy the same space and watching as the actions of one impact the other. It also adds a bit of extra metaphor in this more environmentally conscious time when we sometimes wonder if human and wild animal really can't coexist.

If the werewolf would be just be some man-animal then you have to cut about 98% of all the werewolf movies ever made. It's not just some wolf with human elements in it cause then he would be able to be reasoned it. Most of the time the monster is pretty evil. And doesn't do things just to act like a wolf. One of the best books I've read was a short story where basically a man changes into a werewolf against his will. And hides himself in his celar in a locked chamber of sort. But slowly and surely in his daily life changes, his personaly changes as if the wolf is taking over completely. And at the end he's like so what if innocents dies, I will be free.

[AdamFTF]

If the werewolf would be just be some man-animal then you have to cut about 98% of all the werewolf movies ever made. It's not just some wolf with human elements in it cause then he would be able to be reasoned it. Most of the time the monster is pretty evil. And doesn't do things just to act like a wolf. One of the best books I've read was a short story where basically a man changes into a werewolf against his will. And hides himself in his celar in a locked chamber of sort. But slowly and surely in his daily life changes, his personaly changes as if the wolf is taking over completely. And at the end he's like so what if innocents dies, I will be free.

Yes, it would cut about 98% of werewolf stories. Or rather, it would move past about 98% of werewolf stories. As society and culture moves forward, we have to reassess these horror icons and redefine them or leave them in the dust. Having the wolf part of the werewolf being pure evil worked fine in pre-Industrial times when people thought any animal capable of killing mankind's livestock was evil. But as our relationship with nature and the animal kingdom becomes more complicated and nuanced we have to rethink these things for a new era. How can an animal that's essentially been slaughtered by humans for petty reasons, throwing off the balance of ecosystems in some places, continue to be treated as pure evil? It's also one of the reasons that there have been about a million reinterpretations of "Little Red Riding Hood". The only solution is to say the wolf part isn't wolf at all but some kind of demon that looks like a wolf. But by that point you might as well be doing a general Jekyll and Hyde riff or a more sinister take on Jason Blood and Etrigan. So, what would be the point?

And I don't know about you, but I've never tried reasoning with a hungry wild animal but if you think that's easy go ahead and try.

[Pinsir]

The modern television/streaming format may have be superior means of story telling compared to film, however I'm not sure if they rack in as much cash as a blockbuster film. However the issue with the Netflix series is that; 1) their too long, 2) they each have different showrunners, producers, writers and all around creators. The latter is only an issue when you hope to combine your vision.

You could create smaller mini-series (maybe four episodes long) and release them periodically, all while having the same cast staff for consistency. Essentially a season to lay the foundation for each character (4 monsters, 4 stories, 4 episodes each) and for "Season 2" get your Avengers arc.

[Za Waldo]

The modern television/streaming format may have be superior means of story telling compared to film, however I'm not sure if they rack in as much cash as a blockbuster film. However the issue with the Netflix series is that; 1) their too long, 2) they each have different showrunners, producers, writers and all around creators. The latter is only an issue when you hope to combine your vision.

You could create smaller mini-series (maybe four episodes long) and release them periodically, all while having the same cast staff for consistency. Essentially a season to lay the foundation for each character (4 monsters, 4 stories, 4 episodes each) and for "Season 2" get your Avengers arc.

It's not a superior way, it's just a longer way. It's also a vastly inferior way of telling a story on "film" when one takes into account that things like camerawork is part of the storytelling process in these visual mediums.

If you're doing four episodes long miniseries, then what's even the point? I mean given you're talking about doing this for the Netflix model I'm sure a four episode long miniseries would look less like a miniseries where each episode is also it's own thing, and more like a movie cut up into four parts. So why not just make a movie at that point? You pull of four episodes, who cares? You pull off an epic horror movie and that's something.

Yes, it would cut about 98% of werewolf stories. Or rather, it would move past about 98% of werewolf stories. As society and culture moves forward, we have to reassess these horror icons and redefine them or leave them in the dust. Having the wolf part of the werewolf being pure evil worked fine in pre-Industrial times when people thought any animal capable of killing mankind's livestock was evil. But as our relationship with nature and the animal kingdom becomes more complicated and nuanced we have to rethink these things for a new era. How can an animal that's essentially been slaughtered by humans for petty reasons, throwing off the balance of ecosystems in some places, continue to be treated as pure evil? It's also one of the reasons that there have been about a million reinterpretations of "Little Red Riding Hood". The only solution is to say the wolf part isn't wolf at all but some kind of demon that looks like a wolf. But by that point you might as well be doing a general Jekyll and Hyde riff or a more sinister take on Jason Blood and Etrigan. So, what would be the point?

And I don't know about you, but I've never tried reasoning with a hungry wild animal but if you think that's easy go ahead and try.

This all just kind of sounds really stupid. Having the wolf part being pure evil is just fine today too, it doesn't matter if people have hunted real actual wolves or whatever...these aren't even actual wolves, its a supernatural monster. This is like saying we need to rethink vampires because it's the 21st Centery and we know so much more about bats now. Although not all werewolves are pure evil either, it being a totally not real made up thing werewolves can be whatever. The funny thing is given the framework of it being a horror movie, what I guess you'd call the "problematic" nature of the werewolf doesn't go away with what you were talking about in your other post. If it's functional the same thing, saying this is just how this animal is when it's going around just killing people could be seen as worse.

It is kind of interesting that you bring up the man vs animal aspect of werewolves, because the animalistic side of man is generally seen as the bad of a person. Killing people because you're hungry, or because you want to is generally seen as a evil things for a person to do. You could take that into the realm of sex too, and when applied to humans a man acting like a beast isn't seen as a good person.

I don't even get this "what the point" ending. Werewolves are an interesting old folklorish monster that's been around from something like 600 years. Why should someone be doing a Jekyll & Hyde (which isn't too different from a werewolf anyways) or a dark Etrigan if they want to do a werewolf story?

[Pinsir]

It's not a superior way, it's just a longer way. It's also a vastly inferior way of telling a story on "film" when one takes into account that things like camerawork is part of the storytelling process in these visual mediums.

Except if you look at the greatest cultural drivers in contemporary media, their mostly television shows. Movies just don't seem to have the same resonance as they use too yet television shows like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad and Sapranos are cultural landmarks. Yeah, generally television shows aren't as well shot as they should be, but neither are modern films so its hardly a trade off.

If you're doing four episodes long miniseries, then what's even the point? I mean given you're talking about doing this for the Netflix model I'm sure a four episode long miniseries would look less like a miniseries where each episode is also it's own thing, and more like a movie cut up into four parts. So why not just make a movie at that point? You pull of four episodes, who cares? You pull off an epic horror movie and that's something.

The crux of the story in my suggestion would be the team-up and to get there quickly. I would also say that since most of these stories are pop culture staples, you can just cut their origin stories entirely.

[Doctor Know]

How do those Mummy movies stack up with you?

The Mummy 2017

Mummy Tomb of the Dragon Emperor

The Mummy Returns

The Scorpion King - Spin off from Mummy Returns

The Mummy 1999

The Mummy 1932

[AdamFTF]

This all just kind of sounds really stupid. Having the wolf part being pure evil is just fine today too, it doesn't matter if people have hunted real actual wolves or whatever...these aren't even actual wolves, its a supernatural monster. This is like saying we need to rethink vampires because it's the 21st Centery and we know so much more about bats now. Although not all werewolves are pure evil either, it being a totally not real made up thing werewolves can be whatever. The funny thing is given the framework of it being a horror movie, what I guess you'd call the "problematic" nature of the werewolf doesn't go away with what you were talking about in your other post. If it's functional the same thing, saying this is just how this animal is when it's going around just killing people could be seen as worse.

It is kind of interesting that you bring up the man vs animal aspect of werewolves, because the animalistic side of man is generally seen as the bad of a person. Killing people because you're hungry, or because you want to is generally seen as a evil things for a person to do. You could take that into the realm of sex too, and when applied to humans a man acting like a beast isn't seen as a good person.

I don't even get this "what the point" ending. Werewolves are an interesting old folklorish monster that's been around from something like 600 years. Why should someone be doing a Jekyll & Hyde (which isn't too different from a werewolf anyways) or a dark Etrigan if they want to do a werewolf story?

People have rethought vampires. Guillermo Del Toro's The Strain is a very different take on vampires. Like it or hate it, so was Twilight. Heck, the rules for vampires are very different from what they once were. Everyone seems to lean on the "vampires can't go out in the sunlight" thing when there are parts of Bram Stoker's Dracula when he absolutely would have had to have been out in the sun.

You know what, it's just my take. I think it could reflect humankind's complicated relationship with animals. It could reflect on the idea that not everything that is dangerous is truly evil and on the more brutal and sometimes heartless qualities of animal instinct as well as the idea of what happens when humankind isn't the top animal in the food chain.

Granted, some of this may be a reaction to my distaste for the Wolf Man remake and the ludicrous amounts of gore and killing in it. The werewolf in that movie killed pretty much everyone for no reason and it was all so over-the-top I was never sure if it was supposed to be scary or funny.

Some of it may also be because my absolute go-to reference for horror that has depth and heart is Frankenstein. The book version, not the movie. i always loved that big tragic mess ever since I read it in college. Seriously, the Frankenstein monster is perhaps the greatest literary character ever. I love how the monster wasn't evil but still did many evil acts and Victor was responsible for the whole situation but he wasn't really evil as much as supremely misguided. And they were both damned to destroy each other from the beginning. I always go for tragic monsters over purely evil ones. And maybe I wanted to turn the dynamic between the werewolf and his alter ego into something more complicated and tragic like the dynamic between Victor and the monster. I understand if others don't think that works but it's my take and it's a hill I'll die on.

But then, that's probably just reflective of my own situation. I was never crazy about getting scared by movies but I always loved the Universal Monsters films. And that's because I was always a sucker for a good supernatural tragedy.

[Za Waldo]

People have rethought vampires. Guillermo Del Toro's The Strain is a very different take on vampires. Like it or hate it, so was Twilight. Heck, the rules for vampires are very different from what they once were. Everyone seems to lean on the "vampires can't go out in the sunlight" thing when there are parts of Bram Stoker's Dracula when he absolutely would have had to have been out in the sun.

You know what, it's just my take. I think it could reflect humankind's complicated relationship with animals. It could reflect on the idea that not everything that is dangerous is truly evil and on the more brutal and sometimes heartless qualities of animal instinct as well as the idea of what happens when humankind isn't the top animal in the food chain.

Granted, some of this may be a reaction to my distaste for the Wolf Man remake and the ludicrous amounts of gore and killing in it. The werewolf in that movie killed pretty much everyone for no reason and it was all so over-the-top I was never sure if it was supposed to be scary or funny.

Some of it may also be because my absolute go-to reference for horror that has depth and heart is Frankenstein. The book version, not the movie. i always loved that big tragic mess ever since I read it in college. Seriously, the Frankenstein monster is perhaps the greatest literary character ever. I love how the monster wasn't evil but still did many evil acts and Victor was responsible for the whole situation but he wasn't really evil as much as supremely misguided. And they were both damned to destroy each other from the beginning. I always go for tragic monsters over purely evil ones. And maybe I wanted to turn the dynamic between the werewolf and his alter ego into something more complicated and tragic like the dynamic between Victor and the monster. I understand if others don't think that works but it's my take and it's a hill I'll die on.

But then, that's probably just reflective of my own situation. I was never crazy about getting scared by movies but I always loved the Universal Monsters films. And that's because I was always a sucker for a good supernatural tragedy.

I didn't say people can't rethink werewolves, in fact I said the exact opposite of that...so what's your point? I said the idea werewolves can't be beings of pure evil because of what's actually happened to some wolves is a dumb idea. You were making is some weird moralistic issue about it, and that's kind of stupid. The whole werewolf as an animal still falls into the evil side of things anyways because it's also still a man that's murdring people.

The Wolf Man in the original movie killed a whole lot of people too, you just don't get to see anything on screen because it's a pussy 1941 Hays Code horror movie.

[Za Waldo]

Except if you look at the greatest cultural drivers in contemporary media, their mostly television shows. Movies just don't seem to have the same resonance as they use too yet television shows like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad and Sapranos are cultural landmarks. Yeah, generally television shows aren't as well shot as they should be, but neither are modern films so its hardly a trade off.

No they aren't. Does anyone even really care about Breaking Bad anymore? It ended just a few years ago and I don't heard people talking about what was once thought of by some as the greatest show ever. I liked Breaking Bad, but it sure ain't good enough that I'm ever going to sit down and watch the whole thing ever again.

The crux of the story in my suggestion would be the team-up and to get there quickly. I would also say that since most of these stories are pop culture staples, you can just cut their origin stories entirely.

But still, if it's only four episodes, then what is even the point? I would imagine a four episodes Netflix miniseries to play less like a miniseries and more like a long movie anyways, so if that's what you're doing, then why not just make a long movie?

[AdamFTF]

I didn't say people can't rethink werewolves, in fact I said the exact opposite of that...so what's your point? I said the idea werewolves can't be beings of pure evil because of what's actually happened to some wolves is a dumb idea. You were making is some weird moralistic issue about it, and that's kind of stupid. The whole werewolf as an animal still falls into the evil side of things anyways because it's also still a man that's murdring people.

The Wolf Man in the original movie killed a whole lot of people too, you just don't get to see anything on screen because it's a pussy 1941 Hays Code horror movie.

I've said everything I'm going to say on the matter.

[Da Boat]

Yes, it would cut about 98% of werewolf stories. Or rather, it would move past about 98% of werewolf stories. As society and culture moves forward, we have to reassess these horror icons and redefine them or leave them in the dust. Having the wolf part of the werewolf being pure evil worked fine in pre-Industrial times when people thought any animal capable of killing mankind's livestock was evil. But as our relationship with nature and the animal kingdom becomes more complicated and nuanced we have to rethink these things for a new era. How can an animal that's essentially been slaughtered by humans for petty reasons, throwing off the balance of ecosystems in some places, continue to be treated as pure evil? It's also one of the reasons that there have been about a million reinterpretations of "Little Red Riding Hood". The only solution is to say the wolf part isn't wolf at all but some kind of demon that looks like a wolf. But by that point you might as well be doing a general Jekyll and Hyde riff or a more sinister take on Jason Blood and Etrigan. So, what would be the point?

And I don't know about you, but I've never tried reasoning with a hungry wild animal but if you think that's easy go ahead and try.

Sure someone could do a movie where say someone become a werewolf and punish people that killed wolves as some form of vengful spirit.

But a werewolf is not really a wolf. It's a demon, a monster. They call it a "wolf" but it has nothing to do with wolves. I mean I love wolves, the animal and if they would stick with how wolves react, it would be pretty fucking boring.

The Howling wouldn't have been as scary if the werewolves had been just wolf people instead of monsters.

[shades of eternity]

I think the problem is the two best crossovers I remember are
1. abbott and costello meet frankenstein
2. the monster squad.

and neither is exactly a high quality production.


the universal monsters were camp in the 60's, let alone nowadays.

[Da Boat]

I think the problem is the two best crossovers I remember are
1. abbott and costello meet frankenstein
2. the monster squad.

and neither is exactly a high quality production.


the universal monsters were camp in the 60's, let alone nowadays.

But the crossovers gave the Universal Monsters a new life back in the day. And their existance and all the monster vs monster showdowns feed on the imagination of generation of monster fans, filling up pages and pages of magazines for decades.

[JBatmanFan05]

It's this simple: If they don't treat the Universal Monster series as horror films again, nothing will work.

It's not an Indy Jones-ish action series. They've betrayed the originals.

My best friend is huge Universal Monster fan and we've discussed this a lot.

[GrifterWC]

Universal has pulled their "Bride of Frankenstein" reboot from the schedule.

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/br...ed-1202581652/