MovieChat Forums > The Mummy (2017) Discussion > Horrible Isn't Horror: The New Universal...

Horrible Isn't Horror: The New Universal Universe & Its Crummy Mummy

posted 8 years ago by jriddle73 (368)
5 replies | jump to latest

Thursday, there was a pretty good article on Decider on the problems Universal is going to have in creating its "Dark Universe," which launched Friday with the premiere of THE MUMMY. Written by Brett White, "Monster Problem: Dark Universe is the Anti-Marvel" covers some of the things that have made Universal's model, the Marvel's cinematic universe, work but that won't be applicable to Universal's effort. Marvel prioritizes "character over celebrity"; it doesn't do vehicles for huge-name stars. Universal is grabbing up every uber-A-list actor in sight and using them as major selling-points.[1] "While some Marvel characters weren’t massively popular before their film debuts... , their personalities were well-defined from decades of consistent storytelling," whereas the Universal monsters were archetypes that have been used by basically everyone for decades. Marvel was patient and built its universe over time; Universal is rushing into things, going big, going expansive (and, I'd add, making a lot of the same mistakes as Warner Brothers has made with its DC comics universe).

I'd add another item to this. Universal is going upbudget tentpole with properties that don't work well in that box.[2] In doing so, it's running away from what makes those properties enduring and bankable in the first place: their status as horror icons.

By and large, studio suits hate horror movies, consider them lowbrow trash and don't want to be associated with them. Because horror can be done very inexpensively and has a huge and loyal audience, they'll hypocritically crank out some from time to time to keep the lights on (mostly tamed-down PG-13-rated rehashes of past successes) but they typically reflect the larger Hollywood culture in acting as if they're ashamed of such productions...

The full article is here:
http://cinemarchaeologist.blogspot.com/2017/06/horrible-isnt-horror.html

[–] CraigJamesReview (1727) 8 years ago

It's interesting that you bring this up and i'd like to add the fact of the way a studio like A24 is being treated with their horror movies such as Babadook, The Witch, or this weekend's It Comes at Night. This studio has tried to reinvigorate the entire horror genre, its not only psychologically frightening but these are masterful works of subtle storytelling. These movies have been met with critical acclaim but the general public is turning its back on them, I think because they are not giving the same jump scares and running from ghosts that cheap horror films have been doing for the past couple decades.

I'm trying to go for an engaging, funny youtube channel so, if you have the time, take a look. Hope you enjoy what you see. Thanks in advance. A review of the movie here-https://youtu.be/rrT_CyvSp5c

[–] jriddle73 (368) 7 years ago

I don't know if one can say the general public has turned its back on those movies; THE WITCH was certainly successful, as was THE BABADOOK, just not in the U.S. IT COMES AT NIGHT is certainly going to turn a profit too. Those movies are more like niche items. They're successful, they just aren't hundred-million-+-dollar hits.

I'm certainly with you on shitty horror polluting the genre and having often very deleterious effects over time on audience expectations. A horror picture that unnerves as opposed to providing superficial thrills usually has a very steep mountain to climb to become a massive hit. Someone just looking for some stupid popcorn movie on which to waste a few hours isn't often going to look kindly on a flick that actively upsets them. People with no attention-span or only looking for cheap thrills will find a moody, slow-burn horror utterly boring.

---
"The Dig"
http://cinemarchaeologist.blogspot.com/

[–] Apis (1624) 7 years ago

By and large, studio suits hate horror movies, consider them lowbrow trash and don't want to be associated with them.

After seeing The Mummy, I'm afraid what they'll do to the remakes of The Creature From the Black Lagoon and other classic horrors.

My biggest issue with the movie (even bigger than [spoiler]turning Tom Cruise into some kind of immortal superhero figure[/spoiler]) is the presence of Dr Jekyll in the movie. What's the point of that? Are Universal Studios trying to create something similar to Marvel universe and mash all their horror figures together? That's just silly.

BTW, in Stevenson's book, Mr Hide never killed anyone. He just looked dirty and talked cheap. The worst he did was hit a guy with a walking cane in the heat of an argument. He's so misrepresented in the movies.

[–] jriddle73 (368) 7 years ago

"Are Universal Studios trying to create something similar to Marvel universe and mash all their horror figures together?"

That's the plan, a series of non-horrors about monsters and the monster-fighters who stand against them.

"BTW, in Stevenson's book, Mr Hide never killed anyone. He just looked dirty and talked cheap. The worst he did was hit a guy with a walking cane in the heat of an argument."

Actually, he beat Sir Danvers Carew to death with that cane.

---
"The Dig"
http://cinemarchaeologist.blogspot.com/

[–] Apis (1624) 7 years ago

"That's the plan, a series of non-horrors about monsters and the monster-fighters who stand against them."

I think it's a stupid plan that will just confuse the audience.

Gosh, I read Dr Jekyll and Mr Hide in high school. That was a long time ago, so I stand corrected. I really didn't remember that it was a murder.