Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

[Azrael]

Personally, I try to get excited over the upcoming Universal Monster shared universe that's supposedly going to kick off for real this time with the new MUMMY movie, but I find myself increasingly being more interested in just seeing good and worthwhile remakes/reboots to those classic films, rather than any sort of "shared universe" gimmick that studios are obsessed with these days.

I love the classic monster movies – whether it's the Universal originals or the Hammer remakes – but I'm also apprehensive about the new series. One problem I have is that all of the films will occur in the same contemporary time period, whereas the original stories took place at different points in history. Frankenstein is a product of early 19th century Romanticism, and the plot is very much grounded in the post-Enlightenment philosophy and anatomical science of that age. Dracula and The Invisible Man are both specimens of late Victorian literature. The Mummy really needs to occur in the 1920s, as that was the decade of the Howard Carter expedition that uncovered the tomb of Tutankhamen. I suppose The Wolf Man can take place in any time period, but it works best in an Edwardian setting similar to The Hound of the Baskervilles. The Creature from the Black Lagoon isn't tied to any specific era either, but I always associate it with the 1950s.

But with all these new films set in the modern day, I can't help feeling some of the atmosphere and gothic flavour will be lost. The speculative science behind Griffin's invisibility formula and Dr. Jekyll's serum will seem redundant in the 21st century. And do we really need to have Dr. Jekyll making a cameo in a mummy film? Perhaps they can find a way of updating the material to make it work, but right now I'm just not as enthusiastic about the project as I'd like to be.

Agreed, these would be better if they were given the Sleepy Hollow/ Bram Stoker's Dracula treatment as stand alone period movies. But, where's the audience for that sort of thing? Crimson Peak is the last good "gothic horror/romance" film I can think of, and it was not a financial success. This is unfortunate.

EDIT: Sometimes I wish Burton would cut the kid-criendly crap he's been doing for the last decade (I initially thought the news for Dumbo wasn't real but a joke) and do a "classic monster" movie. He loved this stuff, maybe he's still got it, and his movies make money.

[Silver Nemesis]

Agreed, these would be better if they were given the Sleepy Hollow/ Bram Stoker's Dracula treatment as stand alone period movies.

That's the way to go. If they want to do a monster mash further down the line, they still have the option of doing so. Dracula and the Mummy can be resurrected in any time period. Mary Shelley's original novel ends with Frankenstein's creature on an ice raft in the Arctic, so he could be frozen a la Steve Rogers. As for the other characters, they could be brought in using time travel/magic. These are fantasy stories after all. Just have a big Castlevania-style citadel with portals leading to other time periods, then the monsters can easily battle each other. But save such a scenario until after the characters have all been individually established. They each need to debut in their own story, in their own time and place. Then have them cross over. It's important to remember these monsters all come from separate works, not a shared comic book universe like Marvel and DC. Their literary and cinematic origins should be respected.

EDIT: Sometimes I wish Burton would cut the kid-criendly crap he's been doing for the last decade (I initially thought the news for Dumbo wasn't real but a joke) and do a "classic monster" movie. He loved this stuff, maybe he's still got it, and his movies make money.

Amen. Burton was pure magic back in the eighties and nineties. He was a legitimate auteur with a unique voice, producing films that were both artistically valid and commercially appealing. But the last film of his classic era IMO was Sleepy Hollow. Since then, his work has become increasingly stale and superficial. Every now and then he makes a decent film like Big Fish, but I don't think he'll ever recapture the energy and inventiveness of his formative years.

Burton was once a passionate creative talent with something interesting to say. Now, 'Tim Burton' seems to be a cosmetic brand for a certain type of family-friendly aesthetic – bright green grass, pale-faced characters, black and white gothic fashion, etc. Granted, a lot of those visual motifs were present in his old films too; but back then there was always an underlying emotional or psychological concept connected to the imagery. Whereas now, the Tim Burton aesthetic is pure window dressing. I can't imagine him ever making another film as personal as Edward Scissorhands. But who knows, maybe he'll surprise us.

[The Joker]

I love the classic monster movies – whether it's the Universal originals or the Hammer remakes – but I'm also apprehensive about the new series. One problem I have is that all of the films will occur in the same contemporary time period, whereas the original stories took place at different points in history. Frankenstein is a product of early 19th century Romanticism, and the plot is very much grounded in the post-Enlightenment philosophy and anatomical science of that age. Dracula and The Invisible Man are both specimens of late Victorian literature. The Mummy really needs to occur in the 1920s, as that was the decade of the Howard Carter expedition that uncovered the tomb of Tutankhamen. I suppose The Wolf Man can take place in any time period, but it works best in an Edwardian setting similar to The Hound of the Baskervilles. The Creature from the Black Lagoon isn't tied to any specific era either, but I always associate it with the 1950s.

That's very true. With the Wolfman, one of the reasons I liked the 1941 original was the fact that it really blended the past with what was the then-present. The film's setting took place in Europe, though from what I remember, it's unspecified. However, it's complete with with Lords, gypsies, and german castles, but also include modern day cars. Which is interesting to me, and gives the film a 'otherworldly' feel in the end. I like to think that Timm/Dini took atleast some inspiration from this approach with Batman the Animated Series since it took a similar approach (1940s combined with modern day tech), but that's just speculation. However, I definitely get your point in these characters being products of their time, and which was how they were presented to us in the classic Universal movies.

But with all these new films set in the modern day, I can't help feeling some of the atmosphere and gothic flavour will be lost. The speculative science behind Griffin's invisibility formula and Dr. Jekyll's serum will seem redundant in the 21st century. And do we really need to have Dr. Jekyll making a cameo in a mummy film? Perhaps they can find a way of updating the material to make it work, but right now I'm just not as enthusiastic about the project as I'd like to be.

THIS.

I mean, sure. I'll see it. Cause I'm a sucker for this stuff, and I like the characters. It's just difficult getting really amped up when there's a sense of a underlining notion that it's more about hype of a shared universe right from the very jump than actual focusing on the highest quality for each individual remake. I will say that I hope I'm proven wrong on this, and some of the casting is atleast intriguing to me. So far, Javier Bardem as the Frankenstein Monster tops the list.

[Silver Nemesis]

That's very true. With the Wolfman, one of the reasons I liked the 1941 original was the fact that it really blended the past with what was the then-present. The film's setting took place in Europe, though from what I remember, it's unspecified. However, it's complete with with Lords, gypsies, and german castles, but also include modern day cars.

If a monster film is going to take place in the present day – and The Wolfman is one of the better candidates for such a treatment – then that style is probably the best option. Mix elements of old and new to make the historical setting ambiguous, similar to Burton's Batman films or Dark City (1998). That way even the modern day stories would have an otherworldly gothic quality consistent with the historical entries.

From what little I've seen of the new Mummy film, that's not the approach they've taken. So far it looks like another Mission: Impossible film. I like the M:I movies, but I don't want my monster films adopting the same style.

I like to think that Timm/Dini took atleast some inspiration from this approach with Batman the Animated Series since it took a similar approach (1940s combined with modern day tech), but that's just speculation.

It's not as farfetched a theory as you might think. Have you ever noticed the striking similarity between certain passages of the 1941 Wolfman score and Elfman's Batman theme? I reckon that movie was definitely on their radar when the creative talent at Warner Bros established the look and feel of Batman 89 and B:TAS.

Anyway, here's the latest poster for Thor: Ragnarok:

[The Laughing Fish]

The whole film looks like it's GOTG inspired too.

Considering the 1st Thor was a comedy that shouldn't have been a comedy, I guess it's not that surprising it's heading down that route!

I liked the humour in the first Thor because it felt appropriate for a fish out of water scenario, which is what Thor being banished to Earth was. We may disagree with this, but I didn't think the film was any more of a comedy than Iron Man 3 or even Superman II.

While on the subject of MCU villains, I thought there were only four who made a strong impression: Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane, Tom Hiddleston as Loki, Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian and Robert Redford as Alexander Pierce. I don't quite count Bucky as a villain, but rather a victim due to brainwashing. The rest are undeniably disposable and forgettable.

Most disappointing villain for me would have to be Ultron. The Earth's Mightiest Heroes cartoon did a much better job at establishing his character, where he appeared as a harmless robot created by Hank Pym, who listens to Pym's distaste for human nature's tendency to violence to the point over the course of three or four episodes. Which spurs Ultron to decide human beings must be eradicated. In contrast, he was rushed in Age of Ultron and some things didn't latch on to me e.g. his hatred for Tony Stark.

[thecolorsblend]

Bucky as a villain

Now there's a subplot I'm sick of.

[The Laughing Fish]

I'm sad to say, it still doesn't look very good to me.

[Silver Nemesis]

Director Taika Waititi has pegged the movie's current runtime at around 100 minutes, making it by far the shortest MCU film to date. In other news, the poster art is gorgeous:

But not as gorgeous as this improved alternate version:

Perfection.

[The Laughing Fish]

That official poster is bloody awful! The Goldblum mockup makes that farce look bearable.

[The Joker]

Director Taika Waititi has pegged the movie's current runtime at around 100 minutes, making it by far the shortest MCU film to date.

As far as Thor movies go, that's likely a GOOD THING!