Intro[Not Captioned] Franchises have been a part of the film
industry for as long as they've been a reliable way of making successful films. We've seen
franchises of action, comedy, fantasy, science fiction, horror; but the nature of most movie
franchises means a self contained universe and set of characters that only exist within those movies.
The idea of a shared cinematic universe, with interconnected films among multiple franchises,
may be most well known these days through the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but it goes as far
back as the 1930's with the original Universal Monster line-up. Iconic horror classics like
Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, and The Mummy. All of which saw multiple sequels,
crossovers and eventual remakes. And in 2014 with the release of Dracula Untold, Universal attempted
to launch their own new shared cinematic universe called the "Dark Universe", that would see many of
Universal's most famous characters updated for a new generation, but critical and commercial
disappointment led them to eschew Dracula Untold as the beginning of the franchise, setting out to
try again with "The Mummy", and when that also failed to deliver on the studio's expectations,
they canceled all future projects that had been in production, starting over again with "The
Invisible Man". And now their plans for the future seem to be modernizing each of their classic films
with a different director executing their own vision, rather than each film working together and
building off of each other like the Marvel films do. And while I may have enjoyed The Invisible
Man, quite a bit actually; I truly believe that we deserve a better vision for the "Dark Universe".
As someone who has a deep love for all things horror, there is nothing I'd rather see as a
franchise. Frankly I'm a little worried about Amazon's plans for Middle-Earth even though I
love The Lord of the Rings, and as a Star Wars fan Disney has already let me down, so I'm generally
not in love with the notion of every beloved story or character being expanded into these ongoing
franchises. But I love the Universal Monsters, and most of them haven't been given their proper due
in a long time. Not to mention that this last decade or so has arguably been the best for
horror that we've ever seen, with modern horror masterpieces coming out virtually every year,
and massively successful shows like Stranger Things, The Walking Dead, or American Horror
Story helping the genre to rise in the ranks of popular culture. So now would be the perfect time
to see some of these horror legends brought back to the big screen, with a big budget,
because there's never been a better time to find talented storytellers working in the genre and
an audience to support it. But Dracula Untold and The Mummy essentially feel much more like
straightforward action movies, poorly written ones at that, with one dimensional action heroes and
cliche villains, love interests and comic relief and CGI-fueled action setpieces punctuating the
expository dialogue; each clearly building towards the Dark Universe's version of The Avengers.
But Bram Stoker's original novel is nothing like a Marvel comic. The MCU works because these images,
these characters and stories naturally lend themselves to the summer blockbuster formula.
Trying to transpose classic gothic horror literature into a genre it doesn't belong was just
destined to fail. And I feel the same is true for The Mummy and its original 1932 film counterpart.
They lose so much of the original essence that it feels like a betrayal of the source material,
rather than the fresh new take that they were clearly hoping for. So they adapated to the
criticism, and completely reworked the foundation of the Dark Universe, replacing the original
team behind the franchise's development who had worked on movies like Star Trek,
Transformers, Fast and the Furious; with people like Leigh Whannell and Jason Blum,
known for their work on some of the most successful horror franchises in recent memory.
And I think that if nothing else, this shows their desire to prioritize horror over action for
the future films, but I don't think that the full potential of the Dark Universe can be realized by
trying to emulate either end of that spectrum. If we go back to the 90's, there was another
Dark Universe of sorts, not a proper cinematic universe all under the same studio and direction,
but there were many films coming out in the 90's that were either remakes of classic Universal
Monster movies or adaptations of classic horror literature; with acclaimed directors like Francis
Ford Coppola directing Dracula, and serving as producer on Kenneth Brannagh's Frankenstein as
well as Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow, all developing their own stylistic vision of mature films for
mature audiences. Given the luxury of talented people both in front of and behind the camera,
with considerable budgets for R rated films, and the freedom to develop these films separate from
each other. These films are all far from perfect, but there's a reason many of them were Oscar
nominees or winners for things like costume design or cinematography; they weren't treated like niche
genre films, they were treated with the same level of craftsmanship as any other Oscar contender,
and they offered a level of spectacle normally not seen within the horror genre.
But despite some acclaim at the technical aspects, most of these films were critically panned,
some more so than others, which seemed to directly influence Universal's direction when rebooting
The Mummy in 1999. What started as a smaller budget horror film that at one point at Clive
Barker attached, then George A. Romero, eventually through director Stephen Sommers, transformed into
more of an action/adventure inspired by Indiana Jones, meant to follow in the vein of the action
comedies that had dominated the box office at the time. Despite mixed critical reviews,
it went on to become one of the highest grossing films of the year, eventually earning two sequels
and a five-film long spinoff franchise. Seeing the potential for the franchise to expand into other
films with other characters, Universal brought Stephen Sommers back to develop Van Helsing,
a reimagining of a character first introduced in Bram Stoker's original novel, coupled with
some elements and characters from Frankenstein, and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It made a profit
at the box office, but given how expensive marketing for a film of this scale can get,
it didn't make nearly the profit that they were hoping for as their next summer blockbuster.
And with the critical reviews almost unanimously negative, they decided to leave the franchise
there. Only returning with the third and final Mummy film under a different director,
most commonly considered to be the worst of the trilogy; and several of the straight to
DVD Scorpion King films. But despite shifting The Mummy from straightforward horror into an action
comedy, they still seemed to see the potential of what directors like Coppola and Burton had
explored with the high budget R rated horror films like Sleepy Hollow, and attempted to do
the same in 2010 with The Wolfman. Even bringing in the same screenwriter, production designer,
art director, and composer to work on the film. But the film struggled throughout production,
Mark Romanek, the original director ended up leaving the project because, as he put it:
"When there’s a certain amount of money involved, these things make studios and producers a little
nervous. They don’t necessarily understand it or they feel that the balance will swing
too far to something esoteric, and we could never come to an agreement on the right balance
for that type of thing. Ultimately it made more sense for them to find a director that
was gonna fulfill their idea of the film that they wanted, and we just sort of parted ways."
They considered directors ranging from Brett Ratner, to Frank Darabont before deciding to
hire Joe Johnston, a reknowned visual effects artist who worked on Star Wars and Indiana Jones
before becoming a successful filmmaker in his own right with films like Honey I Shrunk the
Kids and Jumanji. And with rewrites from David Self, they began to rework the film
into something to appeal to wider audiences. Considering the film's $150 million budget,
they had concerns about how well the film could perform at the box office, but all the mishmashing
of creative influences with a project that was in turn around for half a decade, left the film
feeling like a hollow attempt on every level. It didn't quite work as a horror movie, nor did it
work as action spectacle and as a result became one of the biggest commercial flops of the year,
with even the president of Universal at the time calling it "one of the worst films we ever made."
But then Marvel came along, after the release of Iron Man we started to see a clearer picture of
their vision of the MCU, accomplishing something that every other studio thought was impossible.
By building an interconnected franchise with infinite sequel potential that generates
billions of dollars every year. It wasn't long before DC jumped on board with their own DCU,
and now just about every beloved intellectual property is being exhumed to be developed into its
own cinematic universe. It was an inevitability that Universal would try to do the same,
and what better place to start than the Universal Monsters? Iconic characters that
can function together or separately, in escapist entertainment with mass appeal and a backlog of
material to pull from for future films, it's as close as they can get to the expansive nature
of the Marvel Comics. But it feels like they'd given up on the potential of high budget horror
and opted to go with the Disney method instead. And one of the downsides is that all too often,
talented filmmakers sign on to direct a movie within a major franchise, only to drop out
because they're unable to follow their vision, as happened with Phil Lord and Chris Miller with
Solo, or Edgar Wright with Antman. Directors like Darren Aronofsky or David Fincher have
expressed interest in making a superhero film, but they know that means operating within the
often suffocating studio system, and that would mean compromising on any vision they might have.
But considering Universal's new plans for the Dark Universe, not necessarily interconnected films,
or sequels or trilogies, it means that they don't have to find filmmakers who will fit comfortably
into a pre-established mold, or to sign the next ten years of their life away building out this
ever growing franchise. They can find talented filmmakers with vision who want to do something
bold with these stories. People like Robert Eggers, Ari Aster, David Robert Mitchell, or
Jordan Peele have all shown a deep understanding of what makes something effective in horror,
and I think any one of these stories would do well in such capable hands. They could embody
the best of all of the previous attempts, with the craftsmanship and scope of the 90's Dark Universe,
the best of modern cinematic techniques as seen in the recent attempts, with a true
focus on the root of why we loved these stories in the first place, because of their ability to
scare us. But right now, with directors like Elizabeth Banks or Dexter Fletcher attached,
I worry that these films too will feel less like horror, and more like action movies or dramas, or
god forbid, comedies. We know how powerful a scary story can be in the right hands, and we know that
some of these newer directors would love to work on a project like this. In fact, Robert Eggers
has been working on a remake of Nosferatu, which itself was an unauthorized adaptation of Dracula,
so I think Universal should embrace the unique opportunity they've been presented with.
By giving the most visionary directors a chance to do something special with these stories
and characters, and not by abandoning its genre roots, but by embracing them.
It seems the main argument against making more of a traditional horror film on a higher budget
is the inherent risk of a film with an R rating or something that's in more of a niche genre.
But none of these proposed films would need the same sort of budget as The
Avengers, Coppola's Dracula cost around $40 million but it ended up making $215 million,
Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow cost around $70 million but made $207 million.
So it's clear that they can get the big budget treatment without going needlessly overboard,
and still have potential to be profitable; even as a period film, or a hard R rated horror film.
There just seems to be a crucial misunderstanding of the unique potential that the Dark Universe can
offer. They just keep looking to other established franchises for guidance,
first modeling everything after Marvel, and now after franchises like The Conjuring. But if these
films aren't meant to be connected in the same way as a standard cinematic universe, but to
be connected in spirit through a shared vision of mature retellings of classic horror stories,
why not look to classic horror films? There was a time when horror could be seen as just
as respectable as every other genre, and boasts some of the most critically beloved films of all
time.But we lost a lot of years to campy remakes or the heartless torture porn, and it's only been
somewhat recently that horror has been on the rise again; and I would hate to see so much potential
for a one of a kind franchise, to go to waste. I think a great example to point to for imagining
what these films could look like, would be The Shape of Water. Admittedly it is less
straightforward horror than I would hope for in the other films, but it's Guillermo Del Toro's
reimagining of The Creature from the Black Lagoon, and acts like an unofficial entry
into the Dark Universe, in much the same way as the films from the 90's. It's a gorgeously made,
thought-provoking film that is as close to ideal as you can get for what a modern remake should be.
And it seems most others thought so too, despite being a supposedly niche film, not only did
it make a generous profit on its $20 million budget, it ended up receiving 13 Academy Award
nominations, ultimately winning 4 including Best Director and Best Picture. If we were to think of
The Shape of Water as the Dark Universe's version of The Creature from the Black Lagoon, and imagine
that same level of artistry and passion going into every other film, finding that middleground where
a film is given the budget it needs without having to become a global box office smash success just
to recoup its investment. Intelligent films with high production values in a period setting based
on iconic stories meant for mature audiences, with an underlying horror that has the power to
effect people the way the original stories once did. That is what the Dark Universe should be,
not just another version of the MCU, and also not just another version of the Insidious franchise.
But somewhere in the middle, borrowing the best ideas from otherwise flawed films, and taking
advantage of the fact that they hold the rights to some of the most legendary creations in all
of cinema. I can't be the only one with superhero fatigue, or who just hopes to see another sort of
spectacle for a change. It feels like a rare treat when blockbuster entertainment takes a different
approach, and its even rarer to see that kind of big budget spectacle in the world of horror,
but I refuse to believe that I'm the only one waiting and hoping to see that someday. Because
it's undeniable that a higher budget allows a film to do things that a lesser funded film cannot,
and it's undenaible that there are a lot of horror fans out there but it feels like there's
very little in the center of that Venn Diagram right now, here's hoping one day that will change.
Thanks for watching. SPONSORED:
This video is brought to you by Petal. I'm by no means an expert in the world of finance,
but the older you get the more you appreciate how important something like credit can be,
The Petal 1 card is designed to help you build your credit, with higher limits that can help give
some much needed padding for credit utilization, variable APRs that range from 19.99%-29.49%,
and no annual fee. Petal has as intuitive mobile app to help you track your spending,
and it's a great place to start even if you've never had a credit score before, and you can even
see if you're pre-approved without having to worry that it's going to effect your credit score. Plus,
Petal 1 is issued by Petal's partner, WebBank member FDIC. You can try it out for yourself by
heading to petalcard.com/filmradar, it's something that really helps out me in making these videos
and can truly help you in building your credit, again the link is petalcard.com/filmradar.