Dark Universe: Universal's New Monsters Franchise

[BetterButter]

Quote

Universal Studios is going all-in on their new cinematic universe connecting all of their classic monsters. While The Mummy is set to kick things off next month, the studio has revealed that this franchise will be collected under a single banner called Dark Universe, which will have its own logo that will appear before each movie, complete with a musical theme composed by Danny Elfman. 

The Universal Monsters Franchise is Now ‘Dark Universe

[AimingforYoko]

What hath Keven Feige wrought?

[starri]

What's kinda funny is that Bill Condon is supposed to be directing their Bride of Frankenstein remake, and he won an Oscar for his screenplay for Gods and Monsters, which was about James Whale, who directed the original.  Time is a flat circle.

[Spaceman Spiff]

IMHO that Mummy movie looks bad, really bad. I see echo's of the Arthur shared universe they planned with Guy Ritchie's new movie which has tanked badly and probably killed all hopes there, and I think the Mummy movie may do the same here.

[JessePinkman]

Dark Universe is so unimaginative. Why not Monster Universe? Just as unimaginative but at least it says something.

[BetterButter]

Universal’s Dark Universe Adds Two More Monster Movies

[AimingforYoko]

3 hours ago, BetterButter said:

Universal’s Dark Universe Adds Two More Monster Movies

There's a Winston Wolfe quote that seems appropriate here...

[xaxat]

I don't understand the premise of this "universe" (Outside of an effort to exploit old, cheap owned/public domain intellectual properties.).

In addition to the title character (whom I am sure will take a back seat to Tom Cruise's) The Mummy also features 

Spoiler

Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde 

So there will be at least some interaction between the monsters. But how much? Will all of the movies be set in current day? (Good luck finding a bell ringer for Hunchback.) The universe is obviously based on the superhero model of franchising, so will it lead to a Justice League/Avengers arrangement? If so, who will be their big bad? Has the franchise "showrunner" figured this out, or are they making it up as they go along? Will the Hunchback get some kind of super power to fit in with the gang?

So many questions. 

Edited June 7, 2017 by xaxat

[Lugal]

The whole thing does not feel very well thought out other than Universal going, "Marvel's making a shit-ton of money doing these interconnected movies.  We should do that and make a shit-ton of money.  What can we do it with?"  So they go through their catalog and find the old monster movies from the 30's and voila.

The problem is that most of those properties were in the public domain and have been done before.  Disney's done the Hunchback of Notre Dame, and the Phantom of the Opera has been turned into a musical.  We've seen Dracula in the year 3000 and Frankenstein fighting demons (not all these takes on the characters were good).  What can they do with this that we haven't already seen?

Then they set them all in the present, which doesn't work for half their characters (Hunchback, Phantom).  Personally, it should have been set in the 30's, with some of the movies set earlier, and go full out dieselpunk/movie serial adventure.  But what are the odds of a movie featuring a character that's been popular for decades set in another time period before ours being a massive hit?

[starri]

So, I guess that's it for the Dark Universe.

[scarynikki12]

I think it made bank overseas (China in particular) so they'll keep going.  They'll just do like the Transformers franchise, which no one in the US seems interested in* but ends up making most of its money overseas.

*I know people in the US see the Transformers movies but not to the level as when they first started.

[johntfs]

I just came from seeing The Mummy and... it wasn't quite as awful as people have been saying.  I'd been hoping that it was going to be in the style of Dracula Untold, with the character mentioned in the title being more the focus and protagonist of the story instead of being "the problem Tom Cruise has to eventually solve."  I will say that Cruise gets kicked around like a tin can a lot, so that was fun to watch at least.  One weird thing is that Mr. Hyde somehow comes off as somehow a nicer, more reasonable guy than Dr. Jekyll.  Sofia Boutella's Ahmanet murdered multiple people, raised up the undead and wanted to bring about some version of the end of the world.  And yet I was still kind of rooting for her against Tom Cruise.

[Proclone]

11 hours ago, johntfs said:

I just came from seeing The Mummy and... it wasn't quite as awful as people have been saying.  I'd been hoping that it was going to be in the style of Dracula Untold, with the character mentioned in the title being more the focus and protagonist of the story instead of being "the problem Tom Cruise has to eventually solve."  I will say that Cruise gets kicked around like a tin can a lot, so that was fun to watch at least.  One weird thing is that Mr. Hyde somehow comes off as somehow a nicer, more reasonable guy than Dr. Jekyll.  Sofia Boutella's Ahmanet murdered multiple people, raised up the undead and wanted to bring about some version of the end of the world.  And yet I was still kind of rooting for her against Tom Cruise.

 

I saw it yesterday and...I actually kind of enjoyed it as a big dumb movie.  Full disclosure, I used points on a reward card to see it, so perhaps my enjoyment is colored by the fact that I didn't have to pay to see it.  It is a dumb movie, but a dumb movie that has decent action and a couple legitimately creepy moments.  I wish they hadn't spoiled the airplane scene in all the trailers, because that actually was pretty impressive action sequence and would have been more impressive if I hadn't seen it fifty times already before other movies.  It's not as good as the Brendan Fraser, Rachael Wiesz, The Mummy, which remains one of my favorite  kind of guilty pleasure movies.  I will stop and watch it every time I come across it surfing channels. 

This Mummy is also a sort of weird mishmash of films, and I'm not just talking about including Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  It also had American Werewolf in London vibes, with Jake Johnson's zombie/ghost showing up to be funny and give Tom Cruise plot exposition.   Not that I disliked it, but was just weird.  I actually liked Crowe as Jekyll/Hyde, and would have liked to seen more of him/his organization.  It seemed more interesting than anything Cruise was doing.  I did laugh out loud when Hyde tells Cruise's Nick that "You might be a younger man..."  did Cruise have that line added to make it seem like he isn't twenty years older than Annabelle Wallis or way too old to be a Sargent in a recon military unit?  Because Crowe is two years younger than Cruise.  Or was it meant to imply that Jekyll/Hyde was immortal?  Either way I had a good laugh.

I feel bad for Annabelle Wallis, who I really like as an actress (at least in Pinky Blinders) and who I would actually like to see have a decent part in a movie (Her other recent role in King Arthur was non-existent).  Her character, Jenny, was just there.  She does have decent chemistry with Cruise, but she doesn't do much, but scream.  If she was supposed to be working with these monster hunters , why not make her capable of handling herself?  Why not have her know the strengths and weaknesses of the mummies (the minion mummies anyway) and be able to kick some ass?  It seems odd, but Evie (Racheal Weisz) seemed more capable in a movie set in the 1930's then Jenny did in a movie set in 2017.  It seems an odd step back.  One of the reasons I think the '99 The Mummy works so much better is that both Evie and O'Connell (Fraser) are integral to the plot.  Here Jenny is just a side character that could easily be excised with few modifications to the plot.  She is simply a disposable love interest and really nothing more.  So, I can't say I felt very much when she "died" at the end.

Like I said, I by in large enjoyed the movie, it was an excuse to munch popcorn and sit in the AC for two hours, that's not to say it's a good movie.  I'm not even sure it's a good bad movie.  It's sort of just there.  There's nothing offensive about it and it didn't make me angry.  Mostly because I don't think it could have been more than what it was.  It never had the potential to be anything other than it was, a somewhat cheesy monster movie and I'm kind of surprised Cruise and Crowe signed up for it.  

Though if we're going to continue to make The Mummy hot in these things, why doesn't someone just make Anne Rice's The Mummy into a film.  That I'd actually be excited to go see.  Mummy versus Mummy is actually something we haven't seen before...or at least not that I can remember.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Proclone

[thuganomics85]

Saw this as part of my "I've got nothing better to do today" double feature, and it wasn't as awful as I heard, but it still wasn't very good.  I know The Mummy has been around for ages, but it really felt like they were trying to emulate the 1999 version, and while I will never claim that was high art, it was just better then this in almost every way.  It just felt like this film was trying way too hard at everything; action, horror, humor; and rarely hitting the mark.  And then there was all the setup for the rest of the "Dark Universe", which felt like it belonged in another film.

I don't even dislike Tom Cruise, but I even found him strangely off here.  At times it felt like he was an alien pretending to be a human; especially during some of the attempts at making Nick funny.  It just made him feel phony.  Between this and King Arthur, Annabelle Wallis is having a rough time breaking into films, it seems.  Maybe Grace from Peaky Blinders can end up having a twin sister or something.  Jake Johnson was good at being Jake Johnson and Courtney B. Vance was wasted.  Russell Crowe was in paycheck mode for Dr. Jekyll, but was entertaining as Mr. Hyde.  On the other hand, Sofia Boutella was awesome as The Mummy/Ahmanet: both scary and, yep, strangely sexy at the same time.  Really hope she gets a big break soon, after turning in good work in Kingsman, Star Trek: Beyond, and even this.  At least Atomic Blonde looks fun.

Since this looks like it's going to be one of those "Disappoints at the domestic box office, but makes good money overseas", I'm curious to see how the "Dark Universe" is going to play out. 

[johntfs]

7 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

 Russell Crowe was in paycheck mode for Dr. Jekyll, but was entertaining as Mr. Hyde

I really liked his performance as Jekyll.  I wish the film had focused a bit more on him and the idea that the scariest monsters are the ones who think they're the heroes.  Do you think Hitler really thought he was a bad person?

I think Ahmanet would have been much better served if the gray in her character hadn't simply been skin tone.  Like the bit where Jenny tries to talk to Ahmanet about her time in Ancient Egypt and Ahmanet promises to kill her.  That scene would have been much more interesting to me if Ahmanet had been like "Do not worry.  We will have plenty of time to discuss such things once my Vessel is filled.  I'd planned to kill all here, including you, but you speak the language of civilized people and care deeply about my world in your own way, so you will be spared and brought into my court.  Perhaps one day we will even be... what is it called?  Ah.  BFFs."

[johntfs]

Not for nothing, but it was also cool to see a person from the Middle East scare the shit out of people for reasons unrelated to terrorism.

[johntfs]

Going a little further on the shades of gray idea, I'd have switched things around and made Princess Ahmanet basically a decent person who was betrayed and mummified alive by ambitious underlings.  Have her be somebody driven by rage against people long dead and a determination to claim and restore her birthright to rule, well, everything as a living goddess.  Make her somewhat sympathetic but still the antagonist who wants to roll back 5000 years of human progress, which probably isn't going to be good for, you know, humanity.  Have Ahmanet basically want Nick for his body (to house Set) but overall be more interested in Jenny who can appreciate her world.

[TVSpectator]

On 6/12/2017 at 11:55 PM, johntfs said:

I just came from seeing The Mummy and... it wasn't quite as awful as people have been saying.  I'd been hoping that it was going to be in the style of Dracula Untold, with the character mentioned in the title being more the focus and protagonist of the story instead of being "the problem Tom Cruise has to eventually solve."  I will say that Cruise gets kicked around like a tin can a lot, so that was fun to watch at least.  One weird thing is that Mr. Hyde somehow comes off as somehow a nicer, more reasonable guy than Dr. Jekyll.  Sofia Boutella's Ahmanet murdered multiple people, raised up the undead and wanted to bring about some version of the end of the world.  And yet I was still kind of rooting for her against Tom Cruise.

 

I just saw The Mummy and I have to agree that I preferred Ahmanet over both Cruise's character and also Jenny. Overall, in my opinion, Cruise has never worked as an action star and is probably more suited to fewer action roles (and like all Tom Cruise's movies he runs in this one. This time running away from Ahmanent when she breaks out of the prison that Dr. Jekyll had her in). 

Although, I was surprised that Cruise's character

Spoiler

went through with the ritual (to resurrect Jenny) and then was able to escape without us seeing what he now looks like. Although, it was nice that he also resurrected his friend Vail but he is kind of just forcing him (or what I think he is doing) to hang out with him. Maybe it would've been better if Bail's ghost was just around- like a consent reminder of what he is now and what he caused?

 

 

As with Dr. Jekyll, I am thinking that he is supposed to be a more distance person (if he is from the Victorian Era like many of his counterparts are) and that Hyde is more or less the primal version that was willing to say and do things that would get him the best reward (like using Cruise's character to set him free). 

On 6/15/2017 at 1:52 PM, johntfs said:

Not for nothing, but it was also cool to see a person from the Middle East scare the shit out of people for reasons unrelated to terrorism.

So, the actress who played the Mummy was Middle Eastern? I didn't know that. Although, they did have an opening where Cruise's character and Bail were fighting off (what appeared) to be ISIS members or just plain generic "insurgents". 

 

Overall, the movie wasn't bad but it wasn't like Wonder Woman either. It was just okay. I am hoping that the other movies in this universe would be better though. 

Also, I do have a question about Dr. Jekyll's organization: like what were they? Are they supposed to be an international secret group or a secret organization that was part of some government and why would Vail and Cruise's character go treasure hunting if they were US military personal?

[starri]

3 hours ago, TVSpectator said:

So, the actress who played the Mummy was Middle Eastern? I didn't know that. 

Sofia Boutella is Algerian, so North African, not Middle Eastern.

[TVSpectator]

Just now, starri said:

Sofia Boutella is Algerian, so North African, not Middle Eastern.

Oh, okay. Thanks.

[kiddo82]

I don't think the dark universe is a bad idea in theory.  Universal has already done the shared universe thing with the monsters and Marvel/Disney don't own the rights to that design.  Updated versions of Wolfman, Frankenstein, Mummy et al that are part self aware, part action, part creepy, part camp sound like they could be fun especially as we reach mass superhero saturation.  The key though is making sure the movies are good.  I haven't seen the Mummy but the reviews and box office are not great, Bob.  I also question having Tom Cruise/Russell Crowe as two of your cornerstones.  Did we go back in time?  Is it the year 2000?  Seriously, do people go to the movies to see these guys in these roles anymore?  This has all the makings of something that will flame out badly but the shame of it is it doesn't have to.  

Edited June 20, 2017 by kiddo82

[johntfs]

On 6/18/2017 at 9:26 PM, starri said:

Sofia Boutella is Algerian, so North African, not Middle Eastern.

Geographically, sure.  Demographically, not so much.

As far as the Dark Universe goes, I fear that the whole thing will be an attempt at creating the Monster Justice League of Avengers.  For me the best tone for a Dark Universe was the one in Dracula Untold.  Luke Evans' Dracula drew on dark powers in an attempt to save his wife and people, but ended up doing some pretty terrible stuff and ultimately lost both even though he did destroy his main enemy.  Figure even up to modern times, that Dracula has been a predator who treats most humans as food animals.  There might be a core of the honorable warrior inside him, but most people aren't going to be shown much past the fangs.

Ideally the Dark Universe should be a more expanded, better done version of the Suicide Squad.  The idea of Bad fighting Worse.  The Bad should still be beings you can root for while still recognizing the main reason you're rooting for them is because there's something worse.   You can root for Dracula because maybe deep, deep down there's still a speck of humanity in him.  It would be hard to root for Princess Ahmanet because she killed her dad and murdered a baby.  Not much to cheer for there.  As for the Nick character, it feels like he just lucked into monster "superpowers" so there's not much reason to root against him, which is also the wrong tone to have.

I suppose my concept for the Dark Universe tone should somewhere between the Godzilla movies and Freddy vs Jason.  Nobody should really be happy with the Universal monsters showing up, even if they are saving humanity from some greater evil.  Figure most people will be rooting for something like mutual destruction.

Edited June 21, 2017 by johntfs

[Meushell]

Just watched The Mummy. It reminded me too much of the Brendon Fraser version, but without the charm.

Ahmanet could have been so much better, but her backstory was just over the top and made her look foolish. Why wouldn't she have just discreetly killed the baby? It would have still be evil, but it would have made a lot more sense. She also just wasn't very scary to me. She was like a weak version of Imotep. Sadly, with these complaints, she was the best part of the movie. I was rooting for her in the end. I didn't care when Jenny died, and I was hoping Nick would just be taken over so the movie would end.

The ending. Yikes. It just got sillier and sillier. Ahmanet's defeat just had me rolling my eyes. 

[HunterHunted]

On 6/12/2017 at 10:55 PM, johntfs said:

I just came from seeing The Mummy and... it wasn't quite as awful as people have been saying.  I'd been hoping that it was going to be in the style of Dracula Untold, with the character mentioned in the title being more the focus and protagonist of the story instead of being "the problem Tom Cruise has to eventually solve."  I will say that Cruise gets kicked around like a tin can a lot, so that was fun to watch at least.  One weird thing is that Mr. Hyde somehow comes off as somehow a nicer, more reasonable guy than Dr. Jekyll.  Sofia Boutella's Ahmanet murdered multiple people, raised up the undead and wanted to bring about some version of the end of the world.  And yet I was still kind of rooting for her against Tom Cruise.

It was also significantly rewritten to suit Cruise and beef up his part.

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/the-mummy-meltdown-tom-cruise-1202465742/

[BetterButter]

[qtpye]

On Monday, September 04, 2017 at 2:39 PM, HunterHunted said:

It was also significantly rewritten to suit Cruise and beef up his part.

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/the-mummy-meltdown-tom-cruise-1202465742/

This artcle explains so much. Universal must have been smoking crack to think Tom Cruise still had that sort of pull with American audiences.  Most people will watch a movie depite of Tom Cruise, notbecause of him.

All the actors they are banking on are well past their prime.  The studio would have been better off with a bunch of no names who could let the titular character shine.

[johntfs]

2 minutes ago, qtpye said:

This artcle explains so much. Universal must have been smoking crack to think Tom Cruise still had that sort of pull with American audiences.  Most people will watch a movie depite of Tom Cruise, notbecause of him.

All the actors they are banking on are well past their prime.  The studio would have been better off with a bunch of no names who could let the titular character shine.

I know it's unfair to judge actors by how they seem in interviews and the like.  That said, just eyeballing it, Sophia Boutella seems like a really cool, talented, interesting person.  Tom Cruise just seems like an awful human being.  He's a good actor.  He's handsome and charming, but in the end he just kind of gives off this American Psycho vibe that screams "awful human being."  Like, in this movie, however evil Ahmanet was (and with patricide+infant fratricide she was pretty damned evil) she still came off as somehow being just a better person than Tom Cruise.

[Bruinsfan]

Despite my dislike of him I don't know that I'd go so far as to label him awful. He's not beating spouses or mistreating children or going on drunken bigoted tirades when pulled over by cops. And he apologized for the worst thing I know of that he's done (publicly criticizing Brooke Shields for treating her postpartum depression with medication). But he comes off as extremely phony, like every moment of his life is a PR stunt. I visualize him walking down the staircase in his mansion wearing a Gloria Swanson turban, looking for the camera.

[WritinMan]

Waiting until 2019 to release the next movie in this franchise seems like a bad mistake. If Universal really wants to get this going, they should be releasing one movie per year.

[johntfs]

On 9/27/2017 at 5:01 PM, Bruinsfan said:

Despite my dislike of him I don't know that I'd go so far as to label him awful. He's not beating spouses or mistreating children or going on drunken bigoted tirades when pulled over by cops. And he apologized for the worst thing I know of that he's done (publicly criticizing Brooke Shields for treating her postpartum depression with medication). But he comes off as extremely phony, like every moment of his life is a PR stunt. I visualize him walking down the staircase in his mansion wearing a Gloria Swanson turban, looking for the camera.

I suppose it's the phoniness that makes me suspect awfulness.  Like, if you have to spend that much time being not real (a phony) how bad must the real you be?

 

3 hours ago, WritinMan said:

Waiting until 2019 to release the next movie in this franchise seems like a bad mistake. If Universal really wants to get this going, they should be releasing one movie per year.

Maybe Universe is hoping Tom Cruise chokes to death on his own ego so he won't be involved in the rest of the franchise.

[BetterButter]

Universal Pulls The Plug On BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN

[Bruinsfan]

Isn't it just that they've removed it from the release schedule while Bill Condon works on the script and prep work? I got the impression it was still moving forward, just without a definite end date.

[starri]

Not so much.

I doubt there’s a lot of surprise here. 

[xaxat]

It seemed like a half baked idea from the start.

[Captain Carrot]

It's almost like they wanted the next MCU without looking at the process Marvel used to make their movies.

[Spartan Girl]

On 11/8/2017 at 10:56 AM, starri said:

Not so much.

I doubt there’s a lot of surprise here.