New Dracula movie coming

"Universal monster movies" is the fanchise, they misfired with that Tom Cruise Mummy film and now are trying to salvage it

Attached: lololovesfilms-Universal-Monster-Movie-Collage.png (1600x1200, 3.52M)

Does Creature from the Black Lagoon really belong there? The first movie came out in the 50s, and the series overall has much more in common with 50s sci fi horror than with horror films of the 30s and 40s

I'll second both these recommendations.
The 1931 Dracula is probably the worst of the iconic Universal movies from a technical standpoint but it's also the one I found to be the creepiest. Lugosi and Frye are extremely effective, even after decades of Lugosi's Dracula being parodied over and over again.

As long as they don’t goa retarded route like Leigh Whannell wants to go
bloody-disgusting.com/interviews/3606776/leigh-whannell-describes-hed-reboot-dracula-exclusive/
> So to have this conversation with you, I’m spitballing here, I would take the character right back to that and be like, I’m going to make the psychopath version of this,” Leigh Whannell pitches. “The person who just doesn’t give a fuck. Maybe he drinks blood but beyond that, there’s no capes, there’s no lightning, there’s no fog, no wolves. It’s just a psychopath who drinks blood.
Taking the vampire out of Dracula sounds pretty fucking lame

There's some other goofy shit that gets considered under the 'monsters banner' like the mole men and this island earth. I ignore them though.

shut up James. Shouldn't you be helping Ryan wipe?

Every old movie is overrated only elitist snobs pretend to like literal fucking silent movies

ok retard

because that shit is kitschy and cringe in 2020

t. hollywood hack

The 90s version is better cause it's not 100 years old

I like the psychopath angle, anything that gets away from the humanized Dracula we see nowadays is good with me. It's pretty close to Lugosi's schtick, where he's an inhuman monster hiding behind a civil facade.
I don't think Whannel was arguing to do away with the paranormal, just to avoid relying on iconography that's been beaten into the ground by pop culture.

The 31 version is better because it's not garbage. The 90s one has some nice sets some cool effects, but everything else about it is terrible

this doesn't actually refute anything I said. Debating the "cinematography" of an ancient black and white movie with a camera doing still shots of a room is retarded. If a new movie did that you'd say it's a shitty B movie

agreed, that's why kids paintings are better than Picasso

Attached: 004BTY_Paul_Michael_Levesque_002.jpg (618x412, 53K)

Universal monster fans, please check this. I think this may be interesting.

yeah shaky cams and quick editing will make some guy sitting around drinking blood be ebin

The one with Gary Oldman is pretty decent

But the camera moves a fuck ton in spanish Dracula

youtube.com/watch?v=Bzb3rASU-pM
AHAHAHAHAHA
What about this corny over acted cringe is "good" other than "it's a 'classic' that means I have to pretend it's better than shit that benefits from decades more film making development and acted by modern humans for audiences that aren't just impressed to be seeing moving pictures"

>movie with a camera doing still shots of a room is retarded
This is why you shouldn't talk about a movie you haven't seen. The whole appeal of Spanish Dracula's cinematography is that it has a very dynamic camera for its time

oh I see, some sick jew who's mad that Dracukike is defeated by Christ

>He's overacting, that means it's bad
pleb

>for it's time
but this isn't 80 years ago. Something that was very impressive back then won't be impressive now, do you understand?

I dunno user, after seeing Dracula wreak havoc the whole movie it was pretty satisfying to see him get exposed and humbled, even if it was only temporary.

Produced by (((Jason Blum))) and an absolute-nobody female director, this will be more woke shit.

Universal letting Blumhouse make their IP woke is so retarded. This Dracula will take it up the ass more times than Alucard did.

>Old = outdated
Faggots like you are why no one takes film seriously as an art form

it's not even overracting it's just stiff and wooden. Even this meh movie has way better expression of a similar scene cause it's new
youtube.com/watch?v=JVWrVCLs8ms

I am not a film major that needs to write an essay about the "impact" some old movie had. I need suspension of disbelief to be entertained, ie realism

Is the DARK UNIVERSE or whatever still a thing, or did Universal drop the idea?

>it's not even overracting it's just stiff and wooden
You're aware that acting is more than just saying dialogue, right?

It is still in use. Check this ticket from Halloween Horror Nights 2019 few months ago. Dark Universe is now a name for monster division.They dropped Kurtzman's vision but they are not giving up. New movies will be prodused by many different companies and show a different take. Some will be cheap R rated horrors, ome will be blockbusters and there is even a musical planned.

Attached: EEVDkACU0AE3ocK.jpg (996x2048, 247.01K)

>I need suspension of disbelief to be entertained
That has nothing to do with how old a film is

You can blame RLM for this. Jay shilled this minimalistic idea on The Mummy review.

RLM, destroying yet another brand...

Dark Universe is back yeah baby!

Herzog's Nosferatu is probably my favorite.

I guess it's something that you can't even define yourself you just have to be born with a magical ability to decide what's good and what's not , meaning the older the better, because rotten tomatos said so

>Blumhouse saw The Mummy review and convinced Universal to let them make actual horror movies with these characters
thanks, jay

I wish Blumhouse would let Carpenter do the Creature if they redo that one. It could be a proper swan song for him.

It's because they saw Vampires, and also because that retarded hack fraud being interviewed also saw Vampires. Jay is also a fucking fraud for acting like it came directly from his shit for brains.

is it going to star Michael B. Jordan as Drac?

>New Dracula movie coming

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

Wtf, I didnt know Leigh whannell did the new invisible man.

>meaning the older the better, because rotten tomatos said so
I don't give a shit about a film's rt score, where did that even come from?

I think a miniseries that's actually good is the best way of capturing everything the original novel does. It's hard to condense all that stuff in a single film. It might be good, but despite how high-profile Dracula is the vast majority of the movies are crappy.

Frankly blumhouse dracula sounds good.

Okay, fine I will say this. I liked Mummy movie. It was pretty dark and mixing horror with top notch action like never before. Of course it would be much better without Russell Crowe but the rest was still fine. I loved confused Tom Cruise loosing his mind.

this. a mini-series is the best thing that they could do.

The creature is often considered the last true universal monster since its been paired up with the others as early as the year it came out.

>a musical planned
that's kind of weird but it might be cool

Richard Roxburgh is a great fucking actor though

The Mummy was an example of brand bias. The same movie with Marvel logo slapped on would be hailed as" impressive, thrilling and important" like every Marvel shit.... but since there's no Marvel logo, they can shit on it. Shame, because it's a really well made movie with much better production design. They went extra mile for tombs, catacombs and crypts instead of CGI and greenscreen everywhere. Even mummy's zombie minions had some kind of 'personality' as they were not just generic renders copied 9438 times.

Attached: 1498149376391.webm (1280x532, 1.49M)

Supposedly it's called get this the monster mash