Why is it that the Universal Monster remakes don't work?

Why is it that the Universal Monster remakes don't work?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vCHREyE5GzQ
youtu.be/OOEiwTisHuE?t=1181
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because they keep trying to remake them as big franchise films instead of horror movies.

Herzogverse when?

and they keep remaking horror icons as non horror movies

They need to make them scary again.

They do. Hammer remakes were pretty good.

because they dont need remaking.

This desu senpai. The Mummy was about Tom Cruise, not the mummy itself.

Whose the guy in the bottom right?

Did anyone say the new Mummy movie was supposed to be like the Universal one? It seemed like a reboot of the already action 90s one.

Also none of the Universal monsters are scary anymore.

Phantom of the Opera. It's a Universal film, but he isn't really part of the universe.

thats Lon Chaney

They could easily make them scary.

They try to turn it into a shitty franchise with a weak plot, unnecessary origins stories, as well as shitty cgi

I bet they could even put normie asses in theater seats if they remade them in black and white with the same kind of gothic approach and architecture/set design, etc. as small horror comedies. This is actually the kind of extended universe shit that someone like Whedon would be good at (closer to Buffy or Cabin in Woods than his Marvelshit) and invite all the trendy horror filmmakers to direct one, like Eli Roth or whatever. Embrace the physical set design and goofy practical effects for tongue-in-cheek retro satire instead of bloated CGI modern shitfests, have all the monsters interact in typical ironic post-modernism hackery with sitcom humor with constant cameos or pop references that normies seem to love. Would be shit but it wouldn't cost them anything and they'd make easy money.

Because Gen Z is stupid. and the Studios ruin ev evrythng with the test groups.

They won't hire Brendan Fraser, so it's doomed to fail.

>Eli Roth

user please.

They are overrated by people who don't watch many old horror movies. There are other Universal movies from 1930s and 1940s that are as good or better than them.

immigrant jew hacks wrote them as instant vehicles for the then new media. theyre all flanderized takes on tales from the old countries. there isn't much compelling lore to them so they get dated quickly. the same will happen to capeshit as well.

>jew hacks

>Come, Vitus, are we men or are we children? Of what use are all these melodramatic gestures? You say your soul was killed and that you have been dead all these years. And what of me? Did we not both die here in Marmorus fifteen years ago? Are we any the less victims of the war than those whose bodies were torn asunder? Are we not both the living dead? And now you come to me, playing at being an avenging angel — childishly thirsty for my blood. We understand each other too well. We know too much of life. We shall play a little game, Vitus. A game of death, if you like. But under any circumstances, we shall have to wait until these people have gone, until we are alone.
The writing was much better than in modern blockbusters.

Hollywood just doesn't put any effort into story quality when they are pushing a known name.

Music was also better.

youtube.com/watch?v=vCHREyE5GzQ

>You will never get a Frankenstein mini-series that is actually faithful to the book.
>Even if you did, it wouldn't be popular because it wouldn't be a random kiddie gore fest.

>Roman-style rhetoric that was fodder for panem et circenses peasants
that's exactly what insecure immigrant jew hacks would think was high brow, and the sentiment was successfully transmitted down the ages thru their media, embodied by you the opinion holder

I don't think they thought it's high brow.

A feelsie ticket charged more than the average walk-in theater, of course they would need to upbrand it to justify the price. You also carry an implicit assumption that style is superior to today's hackery.

>You also carry an implicit assumption that style is superior to today's hackery
Because it is. Also, this wasn't written by a Jewish immigrant.

Only to a roman peasant perpetually looking up. Everything including the specific writer's fee was paid for by the cash of goyim ticket holders funneled into the jew machine of showbusiness.

Why are you even here if you clearly hate Hollywood (because of your primitive anti-Semitism) and probably haven't even seen these films?

Because they are not scary and/or appealing anymore.

We now have creepy pastas and shit like Slender Man that kids like and we've seen MOST of the Universal Monsters dozens of times in movies and other media, people are tired of them.

why do you assume agitating emotions in a conversation about documented historical hollywood facts on Sup Forums.org/tv/? and why do you put these shekel-generating pleb fodder on a modern day pedestal by plain virtue of anachronistic historicity?

Because the originals were made great by their style, not their substance, and that style is seen as too outdate and tacky to ever actually recreate, so any remakes or reboots invariably take the core plot (which is thin and uninteresting) and 'update' the look, which makes them completely pointless.

Modern horror movies also aren't scary.

Have you actually seen the original films?

Which is why other media has already replaced them, retarded kids will go for shit like Slender or the Five Night at Freddys games for this type of crap.

Not to mention originals were "Horror" movies, nowdays all remakes so far has been action movies, which is a completely different genre.

>replaced
No. Horror movies are still very profitable.

fuck this universe bullshit. You cant just watch a movie and enjoy it, it will always have 30 min runtime with other cameo characters, useless in your face lore building and cliffhanger ending with no major characters dying

They wanna have the cake and eat it too. Either respect what the original movies were, or create a new franchise without trying to link it to movies that are the polar opposite of what you're doing.

I wish they had the balls to try to attempt an actual horror shared universe. Even if it's modern style horror, it'd be a different approach to the current "shared universe" trend.

It was promoted as a "Dark Universe" made up from the monsters that teamed up in the classic Universal movies. Universal themselves were forcing the comparison. Bride of Frankenstein is supposed to be the second entry on this universe, after all.

>none of the Universal monsters are scary anymore.
Well, no fucking shit, they're movies from the 30s and 40s. You can still make a modern horror films for the current sensibilities, and use those characters.

They are doing everything wrong. First make good films then think about shared universe.

>You can still make a modern horror films for the current sensibilities, and use those characters
You can.

>Frankenstein
>Bride of Frankenstein
>Phantom of the Opera
>The Mummy
>The Invisible Man
>Creature of the Black Lagoon
>overrated

The only one that doesn't really hold up well on its own is Dracula, as much as I love Bela Lugosi. Sure, there were some other 30s and 40s great horrors, like the Val Lewton ones, or Lugosi/Karloff's Black Cat, but they're all pretty much at the same tier.

Exactly. No one is ever going to top Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, Claude Rains, etc, but as a classic fan, I'm not even expecting that. I'm just expecting horror. Not necessarily black and white, atmospheric or anything - just horror. But they're fucking action movies. I can't understand why. It doesn't appeal to fans of the classics and it clearly doesn't appeal to normies.

>First make good films then think about shared universe.
Of course, this is my main complaint about this "shared universe" trend. But even letting that one go, they could at least try to do something different by trying to bring this trend into a different genre, and have some sort of different approach than "superhero teamup".

Because Hammer Films made better versions of them in the 60's and 70's

They aren't scary.

You're right, they are good films, but because of their popularity most people completely ignore other gems such as Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde (not Universal but still very good), Vampyr (in my opinion it's much better than Dracula), Island of Lost Souls, The Black Cat/The Raven (I agree with you, they are great) and others.

I wouldn't say people ignore Jekyll & Hyde. There are plenty of great 30's/40's horror films, but for me, Bride of Frankenstein, Dracula's Daughter and Dracula are so great, that it's easy to forget about the others.

Not only that, but isn't there a 40's version of Jekyll that's more well-known? I always think of the 30's version instead.

Only Dracula is better all around. The others are either just as good, or not as much.

Well, the Universal ones had more iconic monsters, so they became more iconic themselves. But quality wise, they're all pretty damn close. It's insane thinking nowadays that a fad like that, which was similar to the superhero one right now, could give so many timeless classics and legitimate great films while superhero movies are just a shitfest with a few "ok" ones.

>isn't there a 40's version of Jekyll that's more well-known?
Yes, funny because it's the more censored version.

Because they're all standalone films that never really existed in a universe in the same sense as the Marvel movies. You can't really make an Avengers-style movie. which is obviously what Universal wants, because the monsters are all antagonists from horror movies that exist in their own stories. You can't really connect them unless you do something blatantly ridiculous like Frankenstein v Dracula or something.

>Dracula
Really? There's quite a few horror movies from that era that are vastly superior to Dracula, even a few made by Browning or Lugosi themselves.

>Island of Lost Souls
This shit was disturbing and I only watched it last year.
>Vampyr
Agree, goat vampire movie.
That being said the universal monster movies are all good to great.

Or adding on to this, something like Monster Squad where it's obviously meant to be campy, silly, and comedic

That's because Dracula is a very early talkie.

It's somewhat nostalgia. Dracula and Dracula's Daughter made me understand the appeal of older horror movies. Something clicked and I realized it was the best era for horror.

hell, the spanish version shot on the same sets overnight is vastly better than dracula

Daily reminder that the invisible man is forever /our guy/

They were scary back when people were scared by moving images. Nowadays movies like these can't be scary thus they try different genres which also doesn't work.

>get super anonymity
>immediately proceed to commit various crimes
>murder, robbery, also rape, where da opaque woman at
The invisible man is an honorary nigger in spite of being fucking transparent.

I disagree. There are things I like about the Spanish version, but overall I prefer Lugosi and Von Sloan over the Spanish versions of Dracula and van Hellsing.

But in the Spanish version they didn't forget to kill Lucy. I remember being baffled when in the original they mentioned a lady in white attacking children and then forgot about this.

>forgot
Or maybe it was censorship. The Spanish version was more "naughty".

>implying poor little white guy wouldn't do the same

Same reason Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde is a shit book to read. There's no point in doing creature features if we all know what the monster looks like and what they can do.

The original Invisible Man was a gentleman. He killed some people, scared others but he never raped a woman.

>youtu.be/OOEiwTisHuE?t=1181

Poor little white guy would probably profit from the invisibility to sneak in and jerk off to other people while pretending to be the cuck.

>Alex Kurtzman

Because they show too much and ruin the atmosphere of mystery, always turning into them some cheap jason or freddy action.

RKO horror > Universal horror

the faggot in his natural habitat.

They've been played out through many interpretations.

Hulk is a beefed up Jeckyl and Hyde
Invisible Man has been redone and used in superhero comics since forever.
Same with the Mummy.
Dracula and Wolfman can't compete with Twilight.
Say Black Lagoon and the only response you'll get is from anime fans.

Forgot to add the Frankenstein has been done to death and reinterpreted many times. Reinterpretations include any rampant AI movie whether its the Terminator or Weird Science.

Yes, but he himself never raped anyone.

Wait a minute
Was it the capeshit of the old times?

Not really. It's a weird and unfair comparison. Capeshit is all about huge blockbusters, Universal movies were mostly cheaply made small movies.

No, if anything they're a reinterpretation of the myth of the Golem and other man made creatures, which Frankenstein itself is a retelling of.

These are all not only easy but braindead easy to top if someone actually wants to make a new adaptation of the FUCKING SOURCE MATERIAL, not the movies themselves which were already adaptations. People like Lugosi or Karloff have barely anything in common with how Dracula and The Monster were originally portrayed. The only one I might give you is that karloff is a great Imhotep

>No, if anything they're a reinterpretation of the myth of the Golem and other man made creatures,
Incorrect. No one cares about that shit except fa/tg/ays. Modern filmmakers take their cue from the Frankenstein mythology. Go chuck some dice elsewhere, neckbeard.

the new Kong was decent

>watched Bride of Frankenstein
>mfw the ending

Tom Cruse is the answer. Instead of doing a movie about a mummy they made movie about Tom Cruse

I'm not talking about filmmakers but cultural archetypes.

Human psyche is the most afraid of the unknown. The moment you show the monster it becomes less scary. Dracula, Frankenstein, Invisible Man, and Jekyll/Hyde are practically archetypes at this point, and mummies and werewolves are random mooks in every fantasy RPG ever, so they can't work as horror films due to being too well known, and since they're supposed to be the scary, mysterious antagonists, they don't work well as the end bosses in action films either.

Creature from the Black Lagoon could work though, perhaps made in Predator (the original) style?

I blame the Chinese.

>Creature from the Black Lagoon could work though, perhaps made in Predator (the original) style?
I would watch that.
>scientists want to study certain crocodile blood to find a cure for HIV or whatever
>recruit small team of mercenaries as protection from Amazon tribes, jaguars, etc
>creature has cuttlefish-style camouflage
>can tank small caliber bullets and shotgun blasts easily
>forest is too thick to walk through with equipment, have to take the river
>all but two scientists are wiped out in the first half of movie
>second half is the mercenary team trying to protect remaining scientists while going back up the river to the main camp

who else /Cat People/ here

I think Creature has the most potential.

It already has a pretty creepy design and has the built-in fear of water with it.

But, I still don't trust current studios to do it justice.

1931's Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde is one of my favorite films, it's good to know some other anons have seen/enjoyed it.

Nigger did you just

I would give my right arm for someone to make a new Phantom of the Opera based on the book/original film and NOT the musical.

>It's a Brendan Fraser tries to subtly shipost about how much he hates the new mummy movie on a Mongolian basket weaving forum episode

The Mummy didn't flop you retard.
It barely made back any money, but it didn't bomb or anything. And even if it did, Universal already said they'd still make the next two Dark Universe movies anyway.

Monsters aren't really scary anymore. Now you need whole terror environments and usually some element that captures the evil of the human spirit.