Here’s is a lesson to learn when you’re making a cinematic universe: don’t tell anyone that you are making a cinematic universe. You can’t grow a garden if you don’t know how to plant your first flower.
For real- Imagine how insane that’d make the crossover as well- picture 3 great films, seemingly completely unconnected, and suddenly another character from a totally separate franchise is just there but important and engaged in the story.
@@MJ-98 Imagine if that awesome Elizabeth Moss Invisible Man movie was secretly part of a shared universe, but it was done so subtly that most audiences wouldn't even be aware that it was until like a more subdued Mummy or Dracula movie came out with the Invisible Man/Woman showing up as a cameo at the end? Like they'd been around for the whole film influencing things? Better execution overall.
Ultimately, the businessmen are the final decision maker, not the artists Only a few are willing to bet against the odds, after looking at the financial report
Simple marking logic: you can’t put the cart before the horse when crafting a shared universe. That’s why the MCU, Arrowverse and Conjuring franchises took their time building everything up first.
Studios are trying too hard to make a connected universe when they should worry about just making 1 good film that will garner enough support for a sequal. The Invisible man was awesome and they made that movie for cheap.
Right; studios doing their best to emulate the MCU seem to forget that it started really small, having to use a B-tier character at best because they didn't have access to their big names like Spiderman or the X-Men. That was the key to its success, starting small and building it up from there. What Universal should have done is start with a smaller, lesser known monster, or hell, make up a new one (and that's why we've never heard of it, see?), make it the best movie you can, and watch the reception to it. If it works and people respond positively, then build it up from there. This monster would be the stepping stone to introducing the larger shared universe of the Monsters we know and love. That's how you do it properly.
@@santosic Also, I loved Dracula Untold. It was a pretty good movie with an awesome character and take on Dracula, on my opinion. However, it could have been released differently :/
Cause unlike MCU or even the OG Monster Universe they didn't try to simply set up each Monster on their own, but spent more than half of the Mummy dropping hints to stuff that wasn't even written yet.
This movie falls into the category of "Written by an A.I.". It goes through its paces, checks all the boxes, and at the end of the movie you feel nothing. You forget the plot 3 days later. And when you watch a retrospective 2 years later, you say to yourself "I know I've seen this movie but I don't remember any of these scenes".
This is the issue with most things that wanna be cinematic universes. People forgot that outside of Iron Man 2. The only connective tissue in Pre-Avengers movies was the after credits scene. And Iron Man 2 was the second Iron Man so it was fine to give it some of the time to set up lore and connecting hints. There was time to breath and make things that were good stand alone movies first that then came together later.
Since some of the monsters come from classic literature, I would love to see a cinematic universe where they would build up to a League of Extraordinary Gentlemen reboot!
@@chasjetty8729 - Guy jumps out of a car going 60mph and lands on his feet without so much as any momentum - Guy gets his fingers scratched by a scalpel, through leather gloves - Villain is defeated solely because he brought all the main characters together himself when he could have approached them individually Could go on. The movie was bad
What ruined the Dark Universe was a tale as old as time: Greed and Ego. The suits were pitched the idea of a shared universe, saw what Marvel earned after building their universe over multiple films and said "YES! Print me a billion dollars now!!!" But we need to build up to that "NOW!!!!". Then they brought in TC, how is an excellent actor IMO, who's ego lead him to believe since he was in a bunch of amazing movies that he could do it all. The sad part is that the mistakes are obvious yet the industry can't be honest with themselves. They could try again and just not repeat the same mistakes but instead decide people just don't want those kind of films. It's unthinkable to them that they are the problem.
The saddest thing about this is the idea is at the very least interesting and had some amazing casting, the creative side was pretty good but the business side (including starting with the mummy) ruined it
@@therealCrazyJake Exactly! Start with one of the two most obviously iconic ones to get Butts in seats and then tease it like Marvel did so you attract more. It’s the most obvious business decision to make!
@@higginswalsan that way it also doesn’t harm the film’s functionality as a stand-alone narrative if the plan fails. I liked the little teaser at the end of Kong: Skull Island, even if we didn’t get the actual Kaiju cinematic universe, because it changes nothing about the movie.
Universal should've stayed the course with Dracula Untold and also why would they go for Tom Cruise is beyond me, because that Circus Midget was THE Problem with The Mummy.
I get so hyped when I think about the Dark Universe the idea just sounds dope, but they really dropped the ball by giving Cruise that much control which ended up with the movie being less about the monster.
I mean, usually Cruise in a control is a good thing. But in this case, it was terrible. His bread and butter are great action movies nowadays. He ain’t meant for heavy CGI films.
@@ComedyBros5 To be honest, Mission Impossible is about the only thing that Tom Cruise had full creative control that I found somewhere in between enjoyable and really good. You know that he will give more screen time to the characters HE portrays in the movie even if it drags the plot down but at least in Ethan Hunt's case, that's tolerable. In everything else, I'd prefer he stayed miles away from any input in the direction of the movie because you KNOW that he will fuck it up.
I am not surprised, because this wasn't the 1st time his ego destroyed a film. According to R. Lee Ermey in an interview from 2006 it was Stanley Kubrick's last film Eyes Wide Shut that Tommy Boy wrecked with his ego.
I got really excited at first too, then saw Cruise was set to star and got a little let down, then I heard they were handing him the reins and lost all hope. Actor-director is a hard job to pull off for smaller films but these Marvel style massive movies are hard on a dedicated director to manage, let alone someone who also needs to star in the film. Even the best actor directors couldnt pull that off and Cruise isnt close to that level as an actor-director.
honestly the worst thing to come out of this is that Guillermo Del Toro's Frankenstein was cancelled because it wouldn't have fit in a cinematic universe that never ended up happening Update: Holy shit netflix is reviving it we fucking won
Man, not only that they casting my man Andrew amazing Garfield, Oscar Isaac and Mia Goth. Man, Garfield is gonna be Frankestein Monster so this mean that this monster will have a lot of feelings, emotions and actings. Man this movie will be so fucking good.
@@Gemnist98 discovery, Picard, 50% of the Kelvin timeline movies. That is an inexcusable record for one of the best franchises of all time - and I own Shatners garbage-tier books!
Wow it’s so run into the ground that’s why there’s 5 successful ongoing shows? Lol 😆 some of y’all may need to understand what “running into the ground” means. Next thing you’ll be saying Kevin Feige is running Marvel into the ground.
You are right. To be begin with, the Dark Universe would work better as a period piece - exactly like Penny Dreadful - instead of happening in modern days like Kurtzman’s The Mummy tried to do. I wish Universal had gone along with their 90’s attempt and connected Gary Oldman’s Count Vlad (from Bram Stoker’s Dracula 1992) to Robert DeNiro’s “The Creation” and Helena Bonham Carter’s Elizabeth Frankenstein (both from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein 1994), and even Benicio Del Toro’s Lawrence Talbot (from The Wolfman 2010), and Arnold Vosloo’s Imhotep (from The Mummy 1999). All of which were period pieces.
@@marceloyoneshima It's funny that this sort of shared Monster universe has already been tried several times even before the MCU was dreamed up. Besides basically making the Universal Dark Universe with his Mummy films and Van Helsing (which has four classic monsters in it at once) back in the nineties/early aughts, Stephen Sommers also made Deep Rising and set up a sequel that was going to be Skull Island with King Kong, but it was never greenlit. He'd have had two connected monster-verses Universal could've built on. He even started developing a Van Helsing tv-series as a spin-off, but it was also never greenlit.
The Invisible Man remake was surprisingly good. Universal should go the Marvel Phase 1 route - separate stand-alone films for each monster, then bring them all together for one big movie once all the backstory has been dealt with. 😁
The really sad thing, they could've dropped half the coin they spent on this film making something with a much smaller scale and a tight script and made bank. Start small, dream big.
I would've had the films at the price of 2-3 Game of Thrones episodes which cost $6-$8 million to make. So Universal should've done that had these films between the budget of $18-$24 million instead of $125 million.
@@DominickSpano The Mummy wasn't the 1st movie he wrecked with his ego. According to R. Lee Ermey in an interview from 2006 it was Stanley Kubrick's last film Eyes Wide Shut which was destroyed by Tom Cruise's ego.
It’s funny how most movie studios never thought about making a shared universe of movies and only started thinking about it when the MCU took off. Unfortunately like most other companies, they only thought about getting their instant gratification which ultimately hurt them in the long run
These studios seem to forget that the MCU started off small; Iron Man was in no way an A-tier superhero at the time, much less a household name unlike Spider-Man or the X-Men. But that helped them to start off small and work their way up and that much more more willing to connect everything better as seamlessly as possible. It took time for the MCU to be as it is now, over multiple movies, not establish it all in one movie.
It didn't occur to them to do that until 2012 when Avengers was making all the money and the competition has been scrambling to find any IP they can use to get in on it ever since
"Alex Kurtzman went on and is very successfully running Paramount's entire Star Trek organization" I had to chuckle at that. Everything that man touches, turns to shit.
Is that why there’s 5 ongoing successful Star Trek shows right now and more to come down the line? Chuckle and whine all you want but it doesn’t change the reality that Star Trek is a thriving franchise under Kurtzman’s watch.
The mummy with Tom Cruise wasn't that bad and if they had kept that dark serious tone would have been successful and oversaturation of mcu humor didn't help em on the slightest since mcu fans are just different breed man. But as the concept felt like they condensed 3 older mummy movies in one & this was like the mummy cartoon where Alex was kinda chosen one and had a magic bracelet.
The funny thing is that I would have bought in if no big-name actors were used. There are only a couple actors that I follow and would go see despite the movie ratings. For others, big name actors usually means to me that the actor was chosen before casting and that the script is secondary.
This is a massive peeve of mine, like i'm going to watch your movie if i like the premise and the trailer looks good, i'm not gonna care if your movie has insert huge actor as a main character, i've found that movies that really try to sell you on the big name actors to watch it are usually bad.
Monsters do come back from the dead pretty well. They’re like the Fantastic Four. Or there three tonally different and unrelated Punisher movies that happened before someone accidentally made a wonderful TV series about the character.
I had no idea about this! I thought the Mummy was just an unnecessary reboot of the Brandon Frasier movie so I didn't want to see it. Now I wish the Dark Universe had succeeded so we could enjoy some cool monster movies!
@@danielled8665 I am not surprised by that because that wasn't the 1st time his ego ruined a film, according to R. Lee Ermey it was Stanley Kubrick's last film Eyes Wide Shut which Tommy Boy destroyed with his ego.
Why’s that like I genuinely don’t follow star treck so I’m just curious how he’s doing that I mean it’s got like 5 shows and from what I’ve seen of lower decks it seems pretty funny
The thumbnail on this video sums up the answer to the question "Why did The Dark Universe fail?" Because Tom Cruise wanted to become 'mummy-man' at the end of the movie.
Between Lugosi's Dracula, Karloff's Frankenstein, and Cheney's Wolf Man; I would argue Wolf Man is the best of the films. Unlike the other two, it wasn't an adaptation of a classic novel, but an original screenplay written for film. As such, I felt it held up better since so much of the other two stories was cut or distorted in the process of making them into films.
The Mummy is my favorite classic monster, and seeing it reduced to Tom Cruise flexing his ego genuinely made me sad. Now The Mummy is considered a joke.
I agree with you, and this wasn't the 1st time his ego destroyed a film, according to R. Lee Ermey in an interview from 2006 he said that Tom Cruise's ego destroyed Stanley Kubrick's last film Eyes Wide Shut.
Blame It On Tom Cruise For The Dark Universe Coming To a End. Directions Picked The Wrong Actor In a Horror Movie For The 1017 Mummy Horror Movie. Bring Back The Dark Universe Again. Just Forget About Tom Cruise. GET a REAL DIRECTOR. 😠😡🤬😠.
@@nicholasalbury9996 I agree with you and Universal should've gone for either Sam Worthington who they originally wanted as Dracula back when Dracula Untold was called Dracula Year Zero or Justin Long who I liked in Jeepers Creepers. Because one of those 2 would have been great as Nick Morton and had great chemistry with Annabelle Wallis being how they are close to age with her.
It's funny that they're the Universal Monsters. One, because they belong to Universal, but also because they are universally recognised and classically known, even across cultures
The invisible man movie was incredible. I’d also love to see a wolf man movie with Gosling. The key if Universal wants to set up a “Dark Universe” is by not. Just make good individual, different movies with each character. Then start plotting for a reason to pull some of them together into a crossover.
Always thought how cool it would have been see Dracula Untold and I Frankenstein to crossover when I saw both films, even if there’s no connection between the two
It sounds like Universal was trying to start with The Avengers instead of starting with Iron Man. I remember watching this movie and it felt like you described. A bit boring. The Tom Cruise twist at the end was a proper twist but I remember feeling unsettled with it. It logically worked but the emotions didn't land right. I don't think it was foreshadowed properly. At any rate, Universal should probably try again but they should try with individual movies first which seems to be where they are currently at.
Did we forget about "The Wolfman" with Benicio Del Toro? That would have been a killer addition and should have been the start of the Dark Universe. It was a great adaptation!
Universal executives during creation of dark universe : Tom cruise, Russell Crowe, Johny depp, Javier Bardem - what a stellar cast, what could possibly go wrong ?
Question: Why do they keep Cruise if he consistently costs the studios so much money? I mean, how many billions could this have been worth, if Cruise hadn't come in and bleeped it all up?
The problem with The Dark Universe was that Universal was trying to turn these classic monster's into superhero's. It was an attempt become the answer to Marvel's and Disney's success with their shared cinematic universe of heroes where they forgot what made these monster's such classics for many decades. A reboot of the Universal Monster's wasn't a bad idea but nobody wanted to see them become something they were not and the audience certainly saw their desperate attempt to play cath up with Marvel/Disney. Not once did they think about telling a great story with great characters but rather what shared cinematic universe they could come up with. Rule of thumb: NEVER PUT YOUR UNIVERSE BEFORE YOUR CHARACTERS.
Basically, Universal took the bullet that the MCU dodged, and that bullet was Tom Cruise. Look back at any interview he had concerning the MCU. He was originally supposed to play Tony Stark, which (if it happened) would've spelt the end for the MCU before it could've truly began. Tom Cruise explained why he decided not to play Tony Stark and much of it boiled down to him wanting control over the movie to make it 'special' (Sound familiar?). Heck, Tom Cruise had this one idea for the Iron Man movie where the mask would be transparent. Why? Well, he didn't want his face to be hidden by a metal mask. And now The Mummy is just a real life tale to Kevin Fiege and others about what would've happened if they did things according to Tom Cruise. Tom Cruise is not compatible with any established franchise that doesn't/shouldn't surround him. Universal made other big mistakes in the Dark Universe. But the one which killed it right away was Tom Cruise.
the problem with this, like the problem with most films released nowadays, is the near-total takeover of the film industry by monstrously large corporations. they're obsessed with bringing in a listers, merchandising, leasing rights to theme parks, etc. all told, they're making films prioritizing profits first and entertainment second. so every scene, every frame you lay eyes on, is not the work of a passionate director bringing life to a story that a writer poured their heart and soul into; it's the result of executives finding the most profitable way to acquire someone's attention for two hours. and don't get me wrong, corporations and film have always coexisted. but nowhere near the extent they do today. from licensing appearances, product placements, merchandising, etc., the sheer scale of the profit pulled out of these titles has truly taken on a life of its own. a life that only seeks to grow itself larger and larger, by using the formula that brought about its existence in the first place: prioritize profits - everything else is just window dressing.
Should've gone with Ryan Reynolds instead of Tom Cruise. An adventure movie needs good comic timing but also a believable action athlete. That's why Frasier was so good in the 90s Mummy
Sure..I'll tell you step one of where they went wrong. Instead of telling a spooky Mummy story, focused on the Mummy.. They maid "Mission Impossible: Mummystyle"...
For the MCU it made sense that all these heroes, eventually, after having battled their individual foes had to band to together to take on the biggest threat ever. Why would anything like this have to happen with the movie monsters? Initially the MCU did so well, not because it was a multiverse bridging different franchises, they were compelling or entertaining films…that later came together etc. Look at the MCU now though. Having this huge crescendo with all their popular franchises, now they can’t get close to early era MCU and have no where to go other than continually branching the multiverse out into more multi layered planes of existence.
At this point it's becoming so common that I doubt people are even surprised when they hear that a Star's ego behind the camera ruined a potentially hit movie.
If anyone's interested in a real "dark universe"series then I highly recommend the series Penny Dreadful. A great gothic series with unique and close to faithfull adaptations of most of the classic Universal monsters. Also I'm referring to the original series with Eva Green as the main character not the "city of angels" reebot; just stay away from that one.
With the release of "Werewolf by Night", the MCU is starting to venture into their supernatural side, which has it's own versions of Universal Monsters characters.
Could have been a successful series if it had started with Dracula Untold. There are plenty of people who liked that movie and it was a good starting point for a wider universe.
Their best bet is to make stand alone movies and slowly weave them together instead of trying to make a huge universe right out of the box… drop small hints that they are connected then make an avengers type movie where hero’s/ monsters from different movies team up
Something that helped the MCU was that it didn’t start with current A-listers. That meant that once it was decided to connect films, the studio retained most of the power. Any film with Tom Cruise will be a Tom Cruise film… for better or worse.
Ah yes poor Star Trek, it’s so into the ground that’s why there’s 5 successful ongoing shows with multiple seasons. 👍🏼 Yup, definitely a failing franchise there lol 😆
I never understood the hatred for the mummy. I thought it was fine. I didn't give a sh** about the mummy character, but I thought the movie was ok. I was looking forward to more jeckyl and Hyde and Frankensteins monster
ONE of the prerequisites for building a cinematic universe is a plethora of IPs, which the monster movies do not have. That said, WB handled the godzilla kong verse rather well. And understanding the limited nature of the IP only let it run for a short time.
I loved the mummy (2017) and all the OG universal monsters so I was literally *BEYOND EXCITED* when I heard there was gong to be a new cinematic universe of the monsters, and was extremely mad and upset when I heard it was canceled. Just because one movie isn't a "fan favorite" doesn't mean you should just cancel such an awesome idea like that. Like did the MCU just end after Thor the Dark World? Or Eternals? NO! They kept with the plan and made it awesome. Also critics suck and mostly nitpick
I was surprised at how much I loved Invisible Man. They really need to make more films where they take the monsters, give them a modern day explanation/reason for existing, and actually bring in competent people to work on it rather than stars.
Out of curiosity why does everything needs to explained and by modern ? Just read the books and watch the older movies since all has been told since long time . I'm tired to see all our iconic characters being ruined in todays movies that are plain stupid or only there for lazy cash-in and changing the original story/script to make it politically correctness and feminsim and other crap . We need better movie makers that know their stuff . And better actors that doesn't have an ego or look like they're buisnessman. That's why 90% of the movies made these last 15+ years sucks . Many are already forgotten because there is no more time given , all goes way too fast sadly .
@@defiraphi Have you seen Invisible Man? It's actually a really good movie. It's not really scary, but it is definitely suspenseful and has great character growth that feels realistic. There really isn't anything Woke about the film other than a diverse cast, but every character plays an important and well-written role in the story and are acted well. I get not liking all the remakes and rehashing of new ideas, but that's mainly due to the bad writing and politics that got in the way of creating a good and entertaining story.
@@ParadoxPerson02 No i haven't watched it but why make once again an old movie from before the 50's pride that had a great show and a more realistic movie with Kevin Bacon . Sadly all needs to be modernisated lately by hearthless souls and the hatred by some people that cannot watch old movies or read old books that hasn't the freaking keywords from today ( memes, easter eggs , références ...that are all badly put on wrong moments and too often usen ) . Every movie that got made since these last 15+ years are , not even 5 minutes in the movie already references and shits that doesn't even belong to the movie or franchise the story is set . ( same goes for video games ) it's too much lately . Can't they make a whatsoever movie with whatsoever actors have a real story with a convincible story . How come all was "magic" back then and today all is remakes and reboots and recycled sh*t ?!? Can't people move along ?
@@defiraphi You should really watch the Invisible Man. It's not anything like the original story, rather being its own thing with a guy who can turn invisible being the only real connecting thing. I think it's good and would recommend it to anyone, so just go see it.
The minute they brought Tom Cruise in was the minute this universe was doomed. Tom turned what was supposed to be a horror into a cheesy action film and not in a good way like the Brandon Fraser mummy movies
People thought they could try to recapture the Brendan Fraiser reboot magic in a modern setting. It then got smushed with an attempt to catch up with Marvel. Both objectives failed, badly.
I actually enjoyed The Mummy. It wasn't as bad as many made it out to be, it seemed to be driven more about hating Cruise. As for the deal that you didn't mention that gave Cruise a lot of control. He really didn't get paid much for the role and modest royalties. A huge star for next to nothing and they have expertise (as you mentioned) should of been a win on paper.
To be honest, Mission Impossible is about the only thing that Tom Cruise had full creative control that I found somewhere in between enjoyable and really good. You know that he will give more screen time to the characters HE portrays in the movie even if it drags the plot down but at least in Ethan Hunt's case, that's tolerable. In everything else, I'd prefer he stayed miles away from any input in the direction of the movie because you KNOW that he will fuck it up. If he accepted the role for less royalties than he usually does is because he probably felt that this was his ticket to MCU-levels of success whereas the studio thought that it was a bargain to get a big name to star in their movies for next to nothing. I sincerely doubt any actual love for the source material was involved in those negotiations.
@@RogerioPereiradaSilva77 I agree with you, and this wasn't the 1st he wrecked a film with his ego. According to R. Lee Ermey in an interview from 2006 he said that Tom Cruise's ego fucked up Stanley Kubrick's last film Eyes Wide Shut.
Who would have thought comedic super hero movies weren't' the best base to revive a horror franchise? I've been thinking a lot about how this kind of a movie series could work and I've run into a problem. Bringing all the monsters together tends to drop the scare factor from them entirely. I've noticed that a lot of horror tends to become action or parody as it goes on and maybe that might be because the more we learn about them the less scary they become. Light shining a light on the movie prop. On top of that they aren't as much of a threat to each other as they are to random humans, especially if we know that the two fighting have to eventually learn to work together, so our POV characters aren't in as much danger as normal. I'd love to see it work out but I have no idea how to work around that issue.
True, too many monsters in one film does tend to water them down. Or they become disposable bullet sponges, like in Aliens. The best ensemble monster films focus on one monster (usually Dracula) and relegate the others into more side villain roles.
@@jadenbryant9283 I think it would still be tough to keep them scary. If it focuses on the person they're trying to kill then we'd spend a good chunk of the movie watching them be out maneuvered which could get goofy. If it focused on the monsters plotting revenge they'd lose their mystique.
If they had strung together stand-alone movies very loosely with cameos and subtle hints of how they’re connected, we could have had a great thing going (just don’t cast The Rock as Wolfman, it doesn’t fit, honestly). Having Dr. Jekyll show up for so much of The Mummy and instantly giving away what your doing doesn’t work. I like how the end of Kong: Skull Island tried setting up theirs at the end a whole lot better, hinting at something more, but able to work on its own just in case the idea doesn’t take off. (Also, no mention of Victor Frankenstein?)
Right? Like I wasn't entirely against the idea of modern reboots of these classic monsters. Who knows? Maybe after Invisible Man 2020, we'll get a more competent version of this
@@logannottheonefrommarvel9917 I would much prefer having these shared universe films as period pieces instead of having these characters (Dracula, The Monster, The Mummy, Wolfman, Invisible Man, Mr Hyde, and so on) meeting each other in today’s world. More like The League of Extraordinary Gentleman - Alan Moore’s graphic novel, not that terrible film with Sean Connery - or the characters of Penny Dreadful, and less like the MCU’s Avengers.
@@marceloyoneshima sure, that's the safer and more successful route since anyone can start with any movie and not have to catch up with a dozen or so other films
Universal wanted their own MCU with the Monsterverse they didn't step back to see why the MCU was a success in the first place and them letting Cruise take control of the Mummy was not a wise move. Also I wouldn't say Kurtzman has been running the Star Trek Franchise "Sucessfully" quite the opposite.
Maybe spend more money on the writing, than crazy expensive actors. I’m interested in stories. Stories need to make some kind of sense. Just like comics, I enjoy the artwork, but it’s the story I am here for.
![เปิดบ้าน โคตรสวย ป๋องกพล รู้จักตั้งนาน เพิ่งรู้ว่ารวย!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tmgCF_2HfYI/mqdefault.jpg)
You can still use my gift code BLDHOL2 to get the original $20 starter pack of 20 Intimacy Packs, 100,000 Gold & 100 Diamonds.
“Successfully running Star Trek?” Nerdstalgic, how do you define successfully?
Yea … “successful” and Kdog’s running of Star Trek do not have any chill.
Bring back tyler
Nick Morton Was Definitely Not The Hero that Humanity Needed
Please stop incorporating ads as part of the video. Just run regular ads.
Here’s is a lesson to learn when you’re making a cinematic universe: don’t tell anyone that you are making a cinematic universe. You can’t grow a garden if you don’t know how to plant your first flower.
👏🏾 well said my brother
VERY well said (👏)!
As a matter of fact, don't even tell your writers. Each story should stand on its own
For real- Imagine how insane that’d make the crossover as well- picture 3 great films, seemingly completely unconnected, and suddenly another character from a totally separate franchise is just there but important and engaged in the story.
@@MJ-98 Imagine if that awesome Elizabeth Moss Invisible Man movie was secretly part of a shared universe, but it was done so subtly that most audiences wouldn't even be aware that it was until like a more subdued Mummy or Dracula movie came out with the Invisible Man/Woman showing up as a cameo at the end? Like they'd been around for the whole film influencing things? Better execution overall.
i really hate how studios just like give up on ideas if it fails. instead of learning lessons and improving on the next entry they just throw it out.
Just like Channel Awesome with Demo Reel.
There’s a lot more drive to give up when you lose that much money on something.
Ultimately, the businessmen are the final decision maker, not the artists
Only a few are willing to bet against the odds, after looking at the financial report
I like it tho, shows how scummy they are. Thy dont really care about anything
Because money.
Simple marking logic: you can’t put the cart before the horse when crafting a shared universe. That’s why the MCU, Arrowverse and Conjuring franchises took their time building everything up first.
It seemed like the issue was Tom
Cruise lol
Studios are trying too hard to make a connected universe when they should worry about just making 1 good film that will garner enough support for a sequal. The Invisible man was awesome and they made that movie for cheap.
Why would you say that?
Right; studios doing their best to emulate the MCU seem to forget that it started really small, having to use a B-tier character at best because they didn't have access to their big names like Spiderman or the X-Men. That was the key to its success, starting small and building it up from there. What Universal should have done is start with a smaller, lesser known monster, or hell, make up a new one (and that's why we've never heard of it, see?), make it the best movie you can, and watch the reception to it. If it works and people respond positively, then build it up from there. This monster would be the stepping stone to introducing the larger shared universe of the Monsters we know and love. That's how you do it properly.
@@santosic Also, I loved Dracula Untold. It was a pretty good movie with an awesome character and take on Dracula, on my opinion. However, it could have been released differently :/
Cause unlike MCU or even the OG Monster Universe they didn't try to simply set up each Monster on their own, but spent more than half of the Mummy dropping hints to stuff that wasn't even written yet.
That's not true. That's what marvel been doing forever.
This movie falls into the category of "Written by an A.I.". It goes through its paces, checks all the boxes, and at the end of the movie you feel nothing. You forget the plot 3 days later. And when you watch a retrospective 2 years later, you say to yourself "I know I've seen this movie but I don't remember any of these scenes".
This is the issue with most things that wanna be cinematic universes. People forgot that outside of Iron Man 2. The only connective tissue in Pre-Avengers movies was the after credits scene. And Iron Man 2 was the second Iron Man so it was fine to give it some of the time to set up lore and connecting hints. There was time to breath and make things that were good stand alone movies first that then came together later.
Since some of the monsters come from classic literature, I would love to see a cinematic universe where they would build up to a League of Extraordinary Gentlemen reboot!
I don't know I'm still haunted by the last league of extraordinary gentlemen movie.
@@GothPaoki oh it wasn’t so bad, look at some of what’s coming out now! Won’t be getting anyone to surpass a late life Sean Connery though.
@@chasjetty8729 So much potential from that movie but the source material really puts it to shame.
Over Moore's dead body!
@@chasjetty8729
- Guy jumps out of a car going 60mph and lands on his feet without so much as any momentum
- Guy gets his fingers scratched by a scalpel, through leather gloves
- Villain is defeated solely because he brought all the main characters together himself when he could have approached them individually
Could go on. The movie was bad
What ruined the Dark Universe was a tale as old as time: Greed and Ego. The suits were pitched the idea of a shared universe, saw what Marvel earned after building their universe over multiple films and said "YES! Print me a billion dollars now!!!" But we need to build up to that "NOW!!!!". Then they brought in TC, how is an excellent actor IMO, who's ego lead him to believe since he was in a bunch of amazing movies that he could do it all.
The sad part is that the mistakes are obvious yet the industry can't be honest with themselves. They could try again and just not repeat the same mistakes but instead decide people just don't want those kind of films. It's unthinkable to them that they are the problem.
TC seems like such a loser half the time, and such a talent the other half
@@colmlooney5843 loser half the time and over inflated ego most of the rest. Talent in only a few movies imo.
@@fennec13 fair nuff. Hes ruined too many good movies with his ego and sense of entitlement, that we can 100% agree on
@@colmlooney5843 even R. Lee Ermey said that Tom Cruise destroyed Stanley Kubrick's last film Eyes Wide Shut.
TC should never have been allowed to take over for the director.
The saddest thing about this is the idea is at the very least interesting and had some amazing casting, the creative side was pretty good but the business side (including starting with the mummy) ruined it
They should have started with Frankenstein or Dracula with a brief appearance from Dr. Jekyll after the credits if they wanted to set it up properly.
@@therealCrazyJake Exactly! Start with one of the two most obviously iconic ones to get Butts in seats and then tease it like Marvel did so you attract more. It’s the most obvious business decision to make!
@@higginswalsan that way it also doesn’t harm the film’s functionality as a stand-alone narrative if the plan fails. I liked the little teaser at the end of Kong: Skull Island, even if we didn’t get the actual Kaiju cinematic universe, because it changes nothing about the movie.
Universal should've stayed the course with Dracula Untold and also why would they go for Tom Cruise is beyond me, because that Circus Midget was THE Problem with The Mummy.
I was pretty excited when Crowe turned out to be Dr. Jekyll. Even if the movie wasn't that great, I hoped for a better sequel.
I get so hyped when I think about the Dark Universe the idea just sounds dope, but they really dropped the ball by giving Cruise that much control which ended up with the movie being less about the monster.
I mean, usually Cruise in a control is a good thing. But in this case, it was terrible. His bread and butter are great action movies nowadays. He ain’t meant for heavy CGI films.
@@ComedyBros5 To be honest, Mission Impossible is about the only thing that Tom Cruise had full creative control that I found somewhere in between enjoyable and really good. You know that he will give more screen time to the characters HE portrays in the movie even if it drags the plot down but at least in Ethan Hunt's case, that's tolerable. In everything else, I'd prefer he stayed miles away from any input in the direction of the movie because you KNOW that he will fuck it up.
I am not surprised, because this wasn't the 1st time his ego destroyed a film. According to R. Lee Ermey in an interview from 2006 it was Stanley Kubrick's last film Eyes Wide Shut that Tommy Boy wrecked with his ego.
Cruise IS a monster.
I got really excited at first too, then saw Cruise was set to star and got a little let down, then I heard they were handing him the reins and lost all hope. Actor-director is a hard job to pull off for smaller films but these Marvel style massive movies are hard on a dedicated director to manage, let alone someone who also needs to star in the film. Even the best actor directors couldnt pull that off and Cruise isnt close to that level as an actor-director.
I really liked Dracula Untold :( Luke Evans is such a cool actor and Charles Dance is always awesome too
Yeah, honestly, I didn't think it was perfect, but I actually really liked it too! I don't really get why it was as poorly received as it was. 😅
I thought it was a good movie too, Luke Evans was a good Dracula, I hoped that there would be a followup sequel
Yeah, even I do
@@sparkymularkey6970 idk mayb covid i don't remember when it got released
@@sarov7658 It was years before Covid. I remember seeing it in theaters with my mom. We both liked it.
honestly the worst thing to come out of this is that Guillermo Del Toro's Frankenstein was cancelled because it wouldn't have fit in a cinematic universe that never ended up happening
Update: Holy shit netflix is reviving it we fucking won
Really ? Omg ...when is it releasing ?!?!
Man, not only that they casting my man Andrew amazing Garfield, Oscar Isaac and Mia Goth.
Man, Garfield is gonna be Frankestein Monster so this mean that this monster will have a lot of feelings, emotions and actings.
Man this movie will be so fucking good.
There is one name that ALWAYS comes up with every single Hollywood failure - Alex Kurtzman. What will it take to get this man out of there?
100% agree. Amazing spider man 2 transformers 2 star trek I legit get terrified when I see his name
Holy crosses? Silver bullets? Torches and pitchforks?
@Jan-Robin Gentile
That and he's mates with JJ which gives him a lot of clout.
@@mdtfrfr3683 Actually, the Star Trek is mostly good - everything else is…
@@Gemnist98 discovery, Picard, 50% of the Kelvin timeline movies. That is an inexcusable record for one of the best franchises of all time - and I own Shatners garbage-tier books!
Kurtzman is very successfully running Star Trek... into the ground.
Yeah I was like: Wait, did he said kurtzman is successfully running Star Trek? WTF? Successfully ruining maybe.
Same here! WTF?
"Strange New Worlds" is good. "Discovery" was a mess.
Wow it’s so run into the ground that’s why there’s 5 successful ongoing shows? Lol 😆 some of y’all may need to understand what “running into the ground” means. Next thing you’ll be saying Kevin Feige is running Marvel into the ground.
@@tomaszwitkowski9507Ah yes Star Trek is so ruined that’s why there’s 5 ongoing successful shows doing multiple seasons.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was also something this Dark Universe is trying to get to but can't meet.
Commercial flop, but I loved that film.
As was Van Helsing, and even the Hellboy films, really. The Avengers-style monster mash film has already been made.
The Dark Universe should’ve been more like Penny Dreadful instead of The Avengers
Penny Dreadful is the closest we’ll ever get to the Dark Universe
You are right. To be begin with, the Dark Universe would work better as a period piece - exactly like Penny Dreadful - instead of happening in modern days like Kurtzman’s The Mummy tried to do.
I wish Universal had gone along with their 90’s attempt and connected Gary Oldman’s Count Vlad (from Bram Stoker’s Dracula 1992) to Robert DeNiro’s “The Creation” and Helena Bonham Carter’s Elizabeth Frankenstein (both from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein 1994), and even Benicio Del Toro’s Lawrence Talbot (from The Wolfman 2010), and Arnold Vosloo’s Imhotep (from The Mummy 1999). All of which were period pieces.
@@marceloyoneshima It's funny that this sort of shared Monster universe has already been tried several times even before the MCU was dreamed up. Besides basically making the Universal Dark Universe with his Mummy films and Van Helsing (which has four classic monsters in it at once) back in the nineties/early aughts, Stephen Sommers also made Deep Rising and set up a sequel that was going to be Skull Island with King Kong, but it was never greenlit. He'd have had two connected monster-verses Universal could've built on. He even started developing a Van Helsing tv-series as a spin-off, but it was also never greenlit.
Exactly, Penny Dreadful and the Underworld movies did it way better
Yes...
The Mummy was more of a globetrotting, action adventure than about a perilous, world ending evil creature.
Everyone wants their own MCU but no one wants to put in the work.
The Invisible Man remake was surprisingly good. Universal should go the Marvel Phase 1 route - separate stand-alone films for each monster, then bring them all together for one big movie once all the backstory has been dealt with. 😁
We can have them fight a intergalactic alien who has 5 rings, each it’s own powers!!! We can call this enemy Fanos!!
@James Cartwright I can point you to various movies that tell this story. This was a different take on it and it was great.
@James Cartwright It Should Have Been Called The Invisible Stalker.
Invisible Man sucked! Imagine making an invisible suit just to stalk such an ugly woman
@@EliC09 edgelord
The really sad thing, they could've dropped half the coin they spent on this film making something with a much smaller scale and a tight script and made bank. Start small, dream big.
I would've had the films at the price of 2-3 Game of Thrones episodes which cost $6-$8 million to make. So Universal should've done that had these films between the budget of $18-$24 million instead of $125 million.
I grew up on Monster Squad and hey it's a part of my nostalgic childhood.
I was glad to see the clips in this, even if that movie wasn't mentioned. Definitely my favorite version of these characters!
It is to bad b/c it did seem like a cool idea, but The Mummy with Tom Cruise really really stunk.
One of those things that sounded good on paper but was poorly executed
@@santosic I know. What a shame b/c I do love the old school monsters.
That is because Tom Cruise was THE Problem.
@@stainshield That is the impression I get from watching it.
@@DominickSpano The Mummy wasn't the 1st movie he wrecked with his ego. According to R. Lee Ermey in an interview from 2006 it was Stanley Kubrick's last film Eyes Wide Shut which was destroyed by Tom Cruise's ego.
It’s funny how most movie studios never thought about making a shared universe of movies and only started thinking about it when the MCU took off. Unfortunately like most other companies, they only thought about getting their instant gratification which ultimately hurt them in the long run
These studios seem to forget that the MCU started off small; Iron Man was in no way an A-tier superhero at the time, much less a household name unlike Spider-Man or the X-Men. But that helped them to start off small and work their way up and that much more more willing to connect everything better as seamlessly as possible. It took time for the MCU to be as it is now, over multiple movies, not establish it all in one movie.
It didn't occur to them to do that until 2012 when Avengers was making all the money and the competition has been scrambling to find any IP they can use to get in on it ever since
I think it's wise to make stories that stand on their own first and then connect them later
Well... The story did work on its own. It's just that you know it's coming a connected universe.
"Alex Kurtzman went on and is very successfully running Paramount's entire Star Trek organization" I had to chuckle at that. Everything that man touches, turns to shit.
He’s horrible!
Truth
King Midas touch in reverse. That’s what my Dad used to call that ability.
Is that why there’s 5 ongoing successful Star Trek shows right now and more to come down the line? Chuckle and whine all you want but it doesn’t change the reality that Star Trek is a thriving franchise under Kurtzman’s watch.
Your ending comment 'come back from the dead' is the most underrated closing analysis line ever written sir! Hats off to ya
The mummy with Tom Cruise wasn't that bad and if they had kept that dark serious tone would have been successful and oversaturation of mcu humor didn't help em on the slightest since mcu fans are just different breed man.
But as the concept felt like they condensed 3 older mummy movies in one & this was like the mummy cartoon where Alex was kinda chosen one and had a magic bracelet.
The funny thing is that I would have bought in if no big-name actors were used. There are only a couple actors that I follow and would go see despite the movie ratings. For others, big name actors usually means to me that the actor was chosen before casting and that the script is secondary.
This is a massive peeve of mine, like i'm going to watch your movie if i like the premise and the trailer looks good, i'm not gonna care if your movie has insert huge actor as a main character, i've found that movies that really try to sell you on the big name actors to watch it are usually bad.
I have found my people! Like I rarely care for names, I care more for plot! If a movie looks interesting I'll watch it!
Monsters do come back from the dead pretty well. They’re like the Fantastic Four. Or there three tonally different and unrelated Punisher movies that happened before someone accidentally made a wonderful TV series about the character.
I had no idea about this! I thought the Mummy was just an unnecessary reboot of the Brandon Frasier movie so I didn't want to see it.
Now I wish the Dark Universe had succeeded so we could enjoy some cool monster movies!
Same! I had no idea. It sounds like it could have been awesome :(
@@sillyslicker1 yeah but Tom Cruise fucked it up.
Tom Cruise honestly kind of uined it by taking too much control and forcing himself into more scenes and lines just for vanity rather than story value
@@danielled8665 I am not surprised by that because that wasn't the 1st time his ego ruined a film, according to R. Lee Ermey it was Stanley Kubrick's last film Eyes Wide Shut which Tommy Boy destroyed with his ego.
You forgot about an earlier attempt to setup a "Dark Universe"- 2004's 'Van Helsing', starring Hugh Jackman.
9:27 Kurtzman is running Paramount's entire Star Trek organization straight into the ground!
Why’s that like I genuinely don’t follow star treck so I’m just curious how he’s doing that I mean it’s got like 5 shows and from what I’ve seen of lower decks it seems pretty funny
The thumbnail on this video sums up the answer to the question "Why did The Dark Universe fail?"
Because Tom Cruise wanted to become 'mummy-man' at the end of the movie.
One thing about the Mummy reboot is that Russel Crowe's acting was fantastic in it. No idea how he was nominated for a Razzie...
Between Lugosi's Dracula, Karloff's Frankenstein, and Cheney's Wolf Man; I would argue Wolf Man is the best of the films. Unlike the other two, it wasn't an adaptation of a classic novel, but an original screenplay written for film. As such, I felt it held up better since so much of the other two stories was cut or distorted in the process of making them into films.
The Mummy is my favorite classic monster, and seeing it reduced to Tom Cruise flexing his ego genuinely made me sad. Now The Mummy is considered a joke.
I agree with you, and this wasn't the 1st time his ego destroyed a film, according to R. Lee Ermey in an interview from 2006 he said that Tom Cruise's ego destroyed Stanley Kubrick's last film Eyes Wide Shut.
Blame It On Tom Cruise For The Dark Universe Coming To a End. Directions Picked The Wrong Actor In a Horror Movie For The 1017 Mummy Horror Movie. Bring Back The Dark Universe Again. Just Forget About Tom Cruise. GET a REAL DIRECTOR. 😠😡🤬😠.
@@nicholasalbury9996 I agree with you and Universal should've gone for either Sam Worthington who they originally wanted as Dracula back when Dracula Untold was called Dracula Year Zero or Justin Long who I liked in Jeepers Creepers. Because one of those 2 would have been great as Nick Morton and had great chemistry with Annabelle Wallis being how they are close to age with her.
@@nicholasalbury9996 Yep. The writer turned director sucked. Cruise does a great job with other films using his guys. They needed a scapegoat
Yeah sure Tom Cruise ruined it🙄
It's funny that they're the Universal Monsters. One, because they belong to Universal, but also because they are universally recognised and classically known, even across cultures
The invisible man movie was incredible. I’d also love to see a wolf man movie with Gosling. The key if Universal wants to set up a “Dark Universe” is by not. Just make good individual, different movies with each character. Then start plotting for a reason to pull some of them together into a crossover.
I loved the invisible man film. Great anxious tension throughout
Always thought how cool it would have been see Dracula Untold and I Frankenstein to crossover when I saw both films, even if there’s no connection between the two
It sounds like Universal was trying to start with The Avengers instead of starting with Iron Man.
I remember watching this movie and it felt like you described. A bit boring. The Tom Cruise twist at the end was a proper twist but I remember feeling unsettled with it. It logically worked but the emotions didn't land right. I don't think it was foreshadowed properly. At any rate, Universal should probably try again but they should try with individual movies first which seems to be where they are currently at.
Did we forget about "The Wolfman" with Benicio Del Toro? That would have been a killer addition and should have been the start of the Dark Universe. It was a great adaptation!
Yes..the transformation scene in front of all the Non-believing professors was one of the most awesome special effects out there
Underrated movie.
Oh yeah! It was amazing!
I quite liked that film, very surprised that the video did not mention it
- i was looking for this comment. We don’t need ryan gosling because benecio nailed it perfectly!
Man this would've been such an awesome universe. I'm not a fan of monster flicks, but the visual style and the concept had so much potential here.
Universal executives during creation of dark universe : Tom cruise, Russell Crowe, Johny depp, Javier Bardem - what a stellar cast, what could possibly go wrong ?
9:30 "Very successfully running Paramount's entire Star Trek organization" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣.
Star trek is sh+t
I must be the only person on the planet that enjoyed Dracula Untold 😂 his powers were just so sick!!!
Nope I enjoy it ..and I thought the ending was great ..”Let the games begin” ….so there are two of us on the planet 🌍 that liked it 🤷🏽😂👍🏻
That makes 3 of us the visual effects and the origin story were on point
@@davidgrullon6661 💯👍🏻
I love that movie and watch it often,
I'm a big fan of Luke Evans
I loved that movie, and I still haven't heard anyone explain why they don't
Question: Why do they keep Cruise if he consistently costs the studios so much money? I mean, how many billions could this have been worth, if Cruise hadn't come in and bleeped it all up?
The problem with The Dark Universe was that Universal was trying to turn these classic monster's into superhero's. It was an attempt become the answer to Marvel's and Disney's success with their shared cinematic universe of heroes where they forgot what made these monster's such classics for many decades.
A reboot of the Universal Monster's wasn't a bad idea but nobody wanted to see them become something they were not and the audience certainly saw their desperate attempt to play cath up with Marvel/Disney. Not once did they think about telling a great story with great characters but rather what shared cinematic universe they could come up with.
Rule of thumb: NEVER PUT YOUR UNIVERSE BEFORE YOUR CHARACTERS.
They tried so hard and the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was right there to be a blueprint.
Basically, Universal took the bullet that the MCU dodged, and that bullet was Tom Cruise.
Look back at any interview he had concerning the MCU. He was originally supposed to play Tony Stark, which (if it happened) would've spelt the end for the MCU before it could've truly began.
Tom Cruise explained why he decided not to play Tony Stark and much of it boiled down to him wanting control over the movie to make it 'special' (Sound familiar?).
Heck, Tom Cruise had this one idea for the Iron Man movie where the mask would be transparent. Why? Well, he didn't want his face to be hidden by a metal mask.
And now The Mummy is just a real life tale to Kevin Fiege and others about what would've happened if they did things according to Tom Cruise.
Tom Cruise is not compatible with any established franchise that doesn't/shouldn't surround him. Universal made other big mistakes in the Dark Universe. But the one which killed it right away was Tom Cruise.
the problem with this, like the problem with most films released nowadays, is the near-total takeover of the film industry by monstrously large corporations. they're obsessed with bringing in a listers, merchandising, leasing rights to theme parks, etc. all told, they're making films prioritizing profits first and entertainment second. so every scene, every frame you lay eyes on, is not the work of a passionate director bringing life to a story that a writer poured their heart and soul into; it's the result of executives finding the most profitable way to acquire someone's attention for two hours.
and don't get me wrong, corporations and film have always coexisted. but nowhere near the extent they do today. from licensing appearances, product placements, merchandising, etc., the sheer scale of the profit pulled out of these titles has truly taken on a life of its own. a life that only seeks to grow itself larger and larger, by using the formula that brought about its existence in the first place: prioritize profits - everything else is just window dressing.
I was actually really excited about these movies. Ever since the League of Extraordinary Gentleman, I've been waiting for something like this.
Exactly. I thought they were going to make a modern one. I guess Hotel Transylvania is good enough 😂😂
Should've gone with Ryan Reynolds instead of Tom Cruise. An adventure movie needs good comic timing but also a believable action athlete. That's why Frasier was so good in the 90s Mummy
Sure..I'll tell you step one of where they went wrong. Instead of telling a spooky Mummy story, focused on the Mummy.. They maid "Mission Impossible: Mummystyle"...
For the MCU it made sense that all these heroes, eventually, after having battled their individual foes had to band to together to take on the biggest threat ever. Why would anything like this have to happen with the movie monsters? Initially the MCU did so well, not because it was a multiverse bridging different franchises, they were compelling or entertaining films…that later came together etc. Look at the MCU now though. Having this huge crescendo with all their popular franchises, now they can’t get close to early era MCU and have no where to go other than continually branching the multiverse out into more multi layered planes of existence.
At this point it's becoming so common that I doubt people are even surprised when they hear that a Star's ego behind the camera ruined a potentially hit movie.
If anyone's interested in a real "dark universe"series then I highly recommend the series Penny Dreadful. A great gothic series with unique and close to faithfull adaptations of most of the classic Universal monsters. Also I'm referring to the original series with Eva Green as the main character not the "city of angels" reebot; just stay away from that one.
Because they changed everything and tom cruise wanted to be only about him he said he wanted all the screen time.
You take that back Tom Cruise is hilarious did you not see him dancing at the end of Tropic thunder?
I loved dracula untold . Forever disappointed we didn't see more.
With the release of "Werewolf by Night", the MCU is starting to venture into their supernatural side, which has it's own versions of Universal Monsters characters.
Could have been a successful series if it had started with Dracula Untold. There are plenty of people who liked that movie and it was a good starting point for a wider universe.
But noooooo we can't have anything good
Because Alex Kurtzman like The Idiot Hack that he is didn't want Dracula Untold to be part of The Dark Universe.
I never heard of this dark universe until it was axed, I always thought this was just a not so great reboot of the Brendan Fraser movies.
Love that you answer the question with the thumbnail
Huh
Their best bet is to make stand alone movies and slowly weave them together instead of trying to make a huge universe right out of the box… drop small hints that they are connected then make an avengers type movie where hero’s/ monsters from different movies team up
Which is what the 4
30s and 40s Universal monster movies did.
Tom cruise. The destroyer of universes.
Something that helped the MCU was that it didn’t start with current A-listers. That meant that once it was decided to connect films, the studio retained most of the power. Any film with Tom Cruise will be a Tom Cruise film… for better or worse.
I was really hoping this universe thing happened. dracula untold is pretty good imo.
Yes Universal should try again! The “Dark Universe” is a good idea, copying the MCU was a bad one.
A slight correction...Kurtzman has successfully run the Star Trek franchise INTO THE GROUND.
Ah yes poor Star Trek, it’s so into the ground that’s why there’s 5 successful ongoing shows with multiple seasons. 👍🏼 Yup, definitely a failing franchise there lol 😆
Call a whambulance
Tom cruise just doesn't have comedic timing. He's a straight man, and needs a funny side kick
I was genuinely disappointed the Dark Universe didn't happen. I loved Dracula Untold and Tom Cruise's The Mummy.
They may not be the best movies ever made but I thought they were both a lot of fun tbh
I never understood the hatred for the mummy. I thought it was fine. I didn't give a sh** about the mummy character, but I thought the movie was ok. I was looking forward to more jeckyl and Hyde and Frankensteins monster
@@che542
Never seen it but that's exactly what I'd expect a classic monster universe to be. Fun is how they should be but not funny.
It should've been Dracula Untold, not The Mummy! It's not fair!
Although I'm not going to lie to you I would have liked to seen that Dr Jekyll Mr Hyde and Tom Cruise going out for a night on the town.
ONE of the prerequisites for building a cinematic universe is a plethora of IPs, which the monster movies do not have. That said, WB handled the godzilla kong verse rather well. And understanding the limited nature of the IP only let it run for a short time.
Laughs in Monsterverse
Love that Godzilla is alive and well with Legendary and Toho
Man, Van Helsing with Hugh Jackmon was a hell of a film.
I think The Bride of Frankenstein is actually considered to be the best of the original Universal monster movies by most
the whole Frankenstein trilogy is actually really good. i wouldn't blame anyone if they picked any one of those 3 to be the best
I loved the mummy (2017) and all the OG universal monsters so I was literally *BEYOND EXCITED* when I heard there was gong to be a new cinematic universe of the monsters, and was extremely mad and upset when I heard it was canceled. Just because one movie isn't a "fan favorite" doesn't mean you should just cancel such an awesome idea like that. Like did the MCU just end after Thor the Dark World? Or Eternals? NO! They kept with the plan and made it awesome. Also critics suck and mostly nitpick
I was surprised at how much I loved Invisible Man. They really need to make more films where they take the monsters, give them a modern day explanation/reason for existing, and actually bring in competent people to work on it rather than stars.
Out of curiosity why does everything needs to explained and by modern ? Just read the books and watch the older movies since all has been told since long time .
I'm tired to see all our iconic characters being ruined in todays movies that are plain stupid or only there for lazy cash-in and changing the original story/script to make it politically correctness and feminsim and other crap .
We need better movie makers that know their stuff . And better actors that doesn't have an ego or look like they're buisnessman. That's why 90% of the movies made these last 15+ years sucks . Many are already forgotten because there is no more time given , all goes way too fast sadly .
@@defiraphi Have you seen Invisible Man? It's actually a really good movie. It's not really scary, but it is definitely suspenseful and has great character growth that feels realistic. There really isn't anything Woke about the film other than a diverse cast, but every character plays an important and well-written role in the story and are acted well. I get not liking all the remakes and rehashing of new ideas, but that's mainly due to the bad writing and politics that got in the way of creating a good and entertaining story.
@@ParadoxPerson02
No i haven't watched it but why make once again an old movie from before the 50's pride that had a great show and a more realistic movie with Kevin Bacon .
Sadly all needs to be modernisated lately by hearthless souls and the hatred by some people that cannot watch old movies or read old books that hasn't the freaking keywords from today ( memes, easter eggs , références ...that are all badly put on wrong moments and too often usen ) .
Every movie that got made since these last 15+ years are , not even 5 minutes in the movie already references and shits that doesn't even belong to the movie or franchise the story is set . ( same goes for video games ) it's too much lately .
Can't they make a whatsoever movie with whatsoever actors have a real story with a convincible story . How come all was "magic" back then and today all is remakes and reboots and recycled sh*t ?!? Can't people move along ?
@@defiraphi You should really watch the Invisible Man. It's not anything like the original story, rather being its own thing with a guy who can turn invisible being the only real connecting thing. I think it's good and would recommend it to anyone, so just go see it.
Dracula Untold was fantastic, I would have definitely watched more.
Universal should've kept it as THE 1st film for The Dark Universe.
And to think Tom was almost Iron Man, so we wouldn't even HAVE an MCU if he had stayed on.
Marvel has there own monster superhero team coming 😂😂😂
There was a successful Dark Universe- it was called 'Penny Dreadful' (1st 3 seasons). Now if That had been a film franchise...Wow!
Two videos released together? We're spoilt!
It became private
@@ProfessorPrel I wonder why
Booooooo
@@ProfessorPrel What was the other video?
@@sparkysrg8706 Life of brian from Family Guy
The minute they brought Tom Cruise in was the minute this universe was doomed. Tom turned what was supposed to be a horror into a cheesy action film and not in a good way like the Brandon Fraser mummy movies
I….. have never heard of this Tom Cruise Mummy movie in my life????? How on earth did this happen?
People thought they could try to recapture the Brendan Fraiser reboot magic in a modern setting. It then got smushed with an attempt to catch up with Marvel. Both objectives failed, badly.
Tom Cruise should stick to making Mission Impossible movies, and movies where he is the villain, like Collateral.
I actually enjoyed The Mummy. It wasn't as bad as many made it out to be, it seemed to be driven more about hating Cruise. As for the deal that you didn't mention that gave Cruise a lot of control. He really didn't get paid much for the role and modest royalties. A huge star for next to nothing and they have expertise (as you mentioned) should of been a win on paper.
To be honest, Mission Impossible is about the only thing that Tom Cruise had full creative control that I found somewhere in between enjoyable and really good. You know that he will give more screen time to the characters HE portrays in the movie even if it drags the plot down but at least in Ethan Hunt's case, that's tolerable. In everything else, I'd prefer he stayed miles away from any input in the direction of the movie because you KNOW that he will fuck it up. If he accepted the role for less royalties than he usually does is because he probably felt that this was his ticket to MCU-levels of success whereas the studio thought that it was a bargain to get a big name to star in their movies for next to nothing. I sincerely doubt any actual love for the source material was involved in those negotiations.
@@RogerioPereiradaSilva77 I agree with you, and this wasn't the 1st he wrecked a film with his ego. According to R. Lee Ermey in an interview from 2006 he said that Tom Cruise's ego fucked up Stanley Kubrick's last film Eyes Wide Shut.
Almost like the deal with cruise was the real mummies curse...
I actually liked Dracula Untold
It was very good. I wanted to see where they were going with Charles Dance's character.
Kurtzman?!?! That absolute HACK?
Most of these movies I loved and I would like to see more of them, personally.
It’s not a dark universe if it was only one movie.
Who would have thought comedic super hero movies weren't' the best base to revive a horror franchise?
I've been thinking a lot about how this kind of a movie series could work and I've run into a problem. Bringing all the monsters together tends to drop the scare factor from them entirely. I've noticed that a lot of horror tends to become action or parody as it goes on and maybe that might be because the more we learn about them the less scary they become. Light shining a light on the movie prop. On top of that they aren't as much of a threat to each other as they are to random humans, especially if we know that the two fighting have to eventually learn to work together, so our POV characters aren't in as much danger as normal.
I'd love to see it work out but I have no idea how to work around that issue.
maybe it could be a legion of Doom type situation where they all come together to get revenge on all the people who killed them
True, too many monsters in one film does tend to water them down. Or they become disposable bullet sponges, like in Aliens. The best ensemble monster films focus on one monster (usually Dracula) and relegate the others into more side villain roles.
@@jadenbryant9283 I think it would still be tough to keep them scary. If it focuses on the person they're trying to kill then we'd spend a good chunk of the movie watching them be out maneuvered which could get goofy. If it focused on the monsters plotting revenge they'd lose their mystique.
good point . dammit
I love the simplicity of the old movies the creepiness they were going for . This is like a super hero movie
Dracula Untold was actually pretty good, but I didn't pay to see it in theaters and I think that's the real issue.
same it looked super generic but then i ended up watching it digitally and really kinda enjoyed it
If they had strung together stand-alone movies very loosely with cameos and subtle hints of how they’re connected, we could have had a great thing going (just don’t cast The Rock as Wolfman, it doesn’t fit, honestly). Having Dr. Jekyll show up for so much of The Mummy and instantly giving away what your doing doesn’t work. I like how the end of Kong: Skull Island tried setting up theirs at the end a whole lot better, hinting at something more, but able to work on its own just in case the idea doesn’t take off.
(Also, no mention of Victor Frankenstein?)
I kinda wish the Dark Universe had succeeded
Right? Like I wasn't entirely against the idea of modern reboots of these classic monsters. Who knows? Maybe after Invisible Man 2020, we'll get a more competent version of this
Same, I didn't mind this movie and wish it could've continued
@@logannottheonefrommarvel9917 I would much prefer having these shared universe films as period pieces instead of having these characters (Dracula, The Monster, The Mummy, Wolfman, Invisible Man, Mr Hyde, and so on) meeting each other in today’s world.
More like The League of Extraordinary Gentleman - Alan Moore’s graphic novel, not that terrible film with Sean Connery - or the characters of Penny Dreadful, and less like the MCU’s Avengers.
@@marceloyoneshima sure, that's the safer and more successful route since anyone can start with any movie and not have to catch up with a dozen or so other films
Fascinating video. Keep up the good work.
Universal wanted their own MCU with the Monsterverse they didn't step back to see why the MCU was a success in the first place and them letting Cruise take control of the Mummy was not a wise move.
Also I wouldn't say Kurtzman has been running the Star Trek Franchise "Sucessfully" quite the opposite.
Maybe spend more money on the writing, than crazy expensive actors. I’m interested in stories. Stories need to make some kind of sense. Just like comics, I enjoy the artwork, but it’s the story I am here for.
Dracula Untold was a great movie for the most part. It’s a shame the corporate system destroyed it.