>While both of Universal's attempts failed to impress the audience during their theatrical run, The Mummy and Dracula Untold recently conquered streaming service rocketing to top spots. Netflix is now considering their own outings for the ill-fated Dark Universe - the world of monsters and creatures emerged 200 years ago with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Groundbreaking novel is reportedly getting a new adaptation from acclaimed horror directors. In addition to Frankenstein, Netflix also plans a direct sequel Bride of Frankenstein - a remake of 1935 film.
Move away Universal. Eevn Netflix knows a better way to handle your crap.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>compulsive gambler goes all in on a losing hand after going full tilt all night
why
Whatever it takes to spit on something enjoyed by the straight white males.
That's like having diarrhea on someones shit
>everyone hated darkuniverse then
>everyone wants it now
wtf
Interestingly enough these movies like The Mummy or so became massive home media hits. People like to watch them at home, they just fail to make big money in cinemas.
Also these movies bring a bit of horror to people who don't watch horrors. For example The Mummy, with all flaws, has one good thing. It's spooky enough but not too scary.
>They said sequel to Bride of Frankenstein.
No, sequel to Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein.
Apparently it's real. Maybe they got deal with Universal? Some big names in, for example Christian Bale is attached.
https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/1314348-maggie-gyllenhaal-is-reportedly-directing-christian-bale-in-a-bride-of-frankenstein-remake-for-netflix
So they have the rights or what? Because they can make a Dracula or a Frankenstein movie but actually a "sequel" to Bride of Frankenstein? Well there is one and it's called Son of Frankenstein and it's fricking great.
Universal mostly, but other studios too, have been remaking these stories again and again without the need of calling it the "dark universe." This time the gimmick was that they were supposed to be connected movies and crossovers but that's out of the picture.
>So they have the rights or what?
anyone can make movies about any of these characters, there aren't any "rights". you could go out tomorrow and film Son of the Mummy vs Dr. Frankenstein's Wife's Nephew or whatever the frick and no one would stop you
They said sequel to Bride of Frankenstein. That's not a book. So it's a gimmick or it won't have anything that was invented by Universal which is already almost all but the names of some of the characters.
they can do whatever they want. they don't need rights to any characters. and of course it's going to be a gimmick, every one of these movies is a gimmick.
Universal has the rights to the design. That's for the Frankenstein Monster and the Bride. But maybe they will just assume that they died even though in the Universal movies the Monster survived, and just have Henry (I think they'll be able to call him Henry) do something else.
>Universal has the rights to the design
Universal has the rights to nothing. Nobody gives a frick what you have on paper if Universal tries to take somebody to court because their mummy looked like it was wrapped in bandages they'll lose. Frankie and Bride have been done enough times without the rights that Universal's case wouldn't stand in court either. You have to actively defend your copyrights or else they are null and void.
Universal used to take people to court over this stuff, but they stopped and instead push the original film branding. They pull a disney now, where they instill their versions as THE versions. There's other Peter Pans and Tinkerbells, but Disney pushes their versions. It's not economical to fight in court, its better to spend the money on marketing and products. You might actually make money. No other studio would dare make a 100m budget flat head green Frakenstein movie, that would get universals attention. Otherwise the stance has been court is a waste of money on this issue and they stay out of it. There's literally a whole division at Disney, Universal ect. that calculates potential loss, risk and damages, in case they do want to go to court.
That's in the original book. Universal didn't invent the concept for a female creature. Mary shelley. In the book Dr.Frakenstein destroys the bride before giving her life. The original sequel film is playing off these elements from the original book.
You're not getting it. It doesn't matter if it's in the original book or not because even if they made it up and it was their 100% original OC donut steel they didn't bother protecting their copyrights so they would lose in court.
They will change one or two details and done. Same how GTA gets away with unlicensed cars looking 90% like real models.
They don't need to change any details. They could do a shot for shot remake of the bride of Frankenstein using the original designs and Universal still wouldn't have a case because they haven't given a frick about their intellectual property rights to the designs for over half a century.
Ah OK so rights expired. So that's why Universal is still doing these half assed films like Renfield. To keep renewed rights to their version of Dracula.
The rights didn't expire, they lost the ability to legally enforce their rights to the characters in court by failing to enforce those rights for decades. If you don't pursue legal action against people who infringe your intellectual property rights for decades and people make enough copies that it's genericized you basically forfeit them to the public domain.
lose what? They're allowed to make a female frakenstein creature, whether this "journalist" is accurate in the "Bride" title is worthless to debate. Yes they'd need the rights to call it that, they don't need the rights to do their own version of it.
>lose what?
Lose a copyright infringement case.
>Yes they'd need the rights to call it that
I don't know how many times I need to tell you for you to understand. They do not need the rights. Universal pictures didn't enforce their rights to the characters or designs so their copyrights mean nothing. It's public domain through genericization.
>Im here to argue semantics
Have you tried shutting the frick up? You're wrong and talking out your ass when we could be talking about monsters.
>Have you tried shutting the frick up?
you could just as easily not replied if that's what where you wanted the reply chain to end
Actually Universal does hold (or did) the design to the classic design for Frankenstein's monster, it why he looks so different and is called "The Creature" in the Hammer adaption.
>they were supposed to be connected movies and crossovers
Whu would anybody want that?
It's the only thing that was different from what they've been doing for decades. We get a new remake of one of these movies every few years and no one called it a movie universe.
How about just make a good movie for a change and then worry about universe building later?
>netflix
There will be shitskins everywhere so I don’t care. You couldn’t pay me.
>Memorably forgettable flops
>memorably forgettable
Just let it go you morons.
Still pissed Dracula Untold didn’t get sequels. Castlevania kino without the branding