wingedbeast (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
wingedbeast) wrote2017-11-15 08:48 pm
wingedbeast) wrote2017-11-15 08:48 pm
Entry tags:
The Case for Retrying the Universal Monster Extended Universe
Universal wants their own extended universe franchise. I get it. Marvel shows that can be done well. DC shows that, even if not done well, that can be done profitably. And, it should be noted that Universal has done this before. Way back when we were just getting into those Universal Movie Monsters, Dracula met the Wolfman. Dracula met Frankenstein (well, really the monster but the guy needs a name). The Mummy met Abbot and Costello.
(And, Abbot and Costello were monsters. Make no mistake. Dracula can just hypnotize you and drain your blood. Abbot and Costello had truly Lovecraftian powers. They had the power to twist math and make 13X7=21. Though, I don't think they'll make it into the extended universe.)
It's worked for them before. It will work for them again. And, I have no doubt that they'll try it again. I don't see why they shouldn't. But, they should take care. First, to take it one movie at a time. Secondly, they should make use of the opportunities such an attempt would provide them.
In that vei... In that effort, I'll start with Dracula.
First, we should establish that Dracula is not Vlad the Impaler. Other movies try to tie Count Dracula to Vlad Dracula and I can see why. Vlad Dracula wasn't called Vlad the Impaler because he was such a sweetheart. The effort to tie the two together firmly is just a millstone around the neck of most stories that try it. Even the well-done movie Bram Stoker's Dracula suffered for that connection.
Second, Van Helsing is neither a vampire hunter by trade nor anywhere near associated with a line of destined vampire hunters. By my understanding, in the original novel, Van Helsing was a professor, roped into the conflict by circumstance more than by personal vampire-killing expertise.
If that means that we have to call the vampire by another name, so be it. A "descendent" of Dracula, perhaps, rather than that specific vampire. I don't see the need to retell the entire story when we can tell a new one that comments on the old.
The old story tapped into fears of foreigners. Those are old fears, but not gone. Fears that foreigners will corrupt our youth with their loose morals as well as bring disease are still with us. They adapt in language, but they stick around like rash we just can't fully cure.
To look into that, this Dracula will be wealthy. The original source of his wealth would be somewhat undiscussed, though it will be clear that his is *ahem* old money. He has enough money that any living human could live the life of luxury just off the interest. Instead, he has his business interests, things that keep his "family" in expanding wealth.
He's involved in film, stage, and television. He keeps his face out of the news, as he doesn't really want the publicity. But, to all available evidence, he does have an interest in making sure that stories he likes get told. This translates to an interest in young would-be actors and actresses pleasing him in the effort to secure their parts.
And that translates to a scene, early on, in which he "seduces" a young actor or actress into sex. But, what happens isn't sex. It's him sipping a little blood. Not enough to kill or seriously injure the hopeful, but enough to keep him going for a day or so. Via his ability to entrance, he makes sure that they remember just the sex they expected to happen.
More important, for the story, than his interest in the arts is his interest in politics. He supports, sometimes in secret, candidates and pundits with particular interests. Those interests include shutting down sanctuary cities, the possible wall on the US Southern border, fighting against "job killing" minimum wage hikes. In conversation with political interests, he'll even go so far as to argue against birthright citizenship for anybody who is not born of US citizens.
At the same time, he notices someone. This someone is a part time worker in a low-wage and low-prestige position. This someone, the soon to be target, is an immigrant who's status is not specified to be legal, potentially a dreamer. The camera should notice him noticing, but the person with whom he converses should not.
What follows is Dracula (or descendant thereof) stalking and harassing the one he noticed. He deliberately scares and psychologically tortures his target, including killing a couple people around the target's life (preferably someone in a more vulnerable social position than the target, a homeless person by example). The vampire purposely has the target witness the first of these kills early on.
The target starts out unbelieving. The first death witnessed will be recounted to the police. The target will be clear about what they witnessed but also clear that they're well aware that the shock and fear of witnessing that kind of thing messes with your mind.
The point, for Dracula, isn't to let the target just go on. The point is for them to learn that, yes, vampires are real and, yes, there's a vampire stalking their neighborhood... no, them specifically.
Over time, the target becomes aware that this is an actual vampire stalking them. They do what you expect, research. Some mistakes are made (if only for comedic effect). But, some lore is learned. It's the smell of garlic, for instance, which means that having a meal of garlic bread won't work but fresh raw garlic is a means of repulsing vampires. This will, of course, lead to a gearing up montage.
That leads to a final confrontation in which the target thinks he's killed Dracula. He's even prepared for the fake-out death for a second death. The movie closes with a phone call. "Okay," Dracula tells the target. "You did well. You can live."
Throughout this, it might be a good idea for Dracula to have a sidekick. Three brides might be a bit much for a busy manhattanite lifestyle, but one can be good for fun reparte. This can serve the purpose of asking Dracula some questions. Three important questions.
Question 1, asked early on, potentially before the stalking begins. Why the politics? The answer is that the more of a vulnerable underclass there is, the more he has a victim pool to work with. All the easier to kill with.
Question 2, asked after the stalking has begun, potentially after the first kill. Why kill at all? It's obvious, from the "seduction" scene, that Dracula can feed to full need without ending anybody's life. The answer is "what's the use of being a vampire otherwise?"
Question 3, asked at the very end. Why the call? Because knowing that there's a vampire out there that the now-ex-target can't do anything about will be a constant terror. Oh what fun!
With this framework, there can be elements to be expanded in later movies without having to be hints that take over the movie. For instance, the source of corrected information on how silver and garlic works can be expanded, later on, to involve a wider organization. Or not. If this is the only movie, it should be good on its own.
(And, Abbot and Costello were monsters. Make no mistake. Dracula can just hypnotize you and drain your blood. Abbot and Costello had truly Lovecraftian powers. They had the power to twist math and make 13X7=21. Though, I don't think they'll make it into the extended universe.)
It's worked for them before. It will work for them again. And, I have no doubt that they'll try it again. I don't see why they shouldn't. But, they should take care. First, to take it one movie at a time. Secondly, they should make use of the opportunities such an attempt would provide them.
In that vei... In that effort, I'll start with Dracula.
First, we should establish that Dracula is not Vlad the Impaler. Other movies try to tie Count Dracula to Vlad Dracula and I can see why. Vlad Dracula wasn't called Vlad the Impaler because he was such a sweetheart. The effort to tie the two together firmly is just a millstone around the neck of most stories that try it. Even the well-done movie Bram Stoker's Dracula suffered for that connection.
Second, Van Helsing is neither a vampire hunter by trade nor anywhere near associated with a line of destined vampire hunters. By my understanding, in the original novel, Van Helsing was a professor, roped into the conflict by circumstance more than by personal vampire-killing expertise.
If that means that we have to call the vampire by another name, so be it. A "descendent" of Dracula, perhaps, rather than that specific vampire. I don't see the need to retell the entire story when we can tell a new one that comments on the old.
The old story tapped into fears of foreigners. Those are old fears, but not gone. Fears that foreigners will corrupt our youth with their loose morals as well as bring disease are still with us. They adapt in language, but they stick around like rash we just can't fully cure.
To look into that, this Dracula will be wealthy. The original source of his wealth would be somewhat undiscussed, though it will be clear that his is *ahem* old money. He has enough money that any living human could live the life of luxury just off the interest. Instead, he has his business interests, things that keep his "family" in expanding wealth.
He's involved in film, stage, and television. He keeps his face out of the news, as he doesn't really want the publicity. But, to all available evidence, he does have an interest in making sure that stories he likes get told. This translates to an interest in young would-be actors and actresses pleasing him in the effort to secure their parts.
And that translates to a scene, early on, in which he "seduces" a young actor or actress into sex. But, what happens isn't sex. It's him sipping a little blood. Not enough to kill or seriously injure the hopeful, but enough to keep him going for a day or so. Via his ability to entrance, he makes sure that they remember just the sex they expected to happen.
More important, for the story, than his interest in the arts is his interest in politics. He supports, sometimes in secret, candidates and pundits with particular interests. Those interests include shutting down sanctuary cities, the possible wall on the US Southern border, fighting against "job killing" minimum wage hikes. In conversation with political interests, he'll even go so far as to argue against birthright citizenship for anybody who is not born of US citizens.
At the same time, he notices someone. This someone is a part time worker in a low-wage and low-prestige position. This someone, the soon to be target, is an immigrant who's status is not specified to be legal, potentially a dreamer. The camera should notice him noticing, but the person with whom he converses should not.
What follows is Dracula (or descendant thereof) stalking and harassing the one he noticed. He deliberately scares and psychologically tortures his target, including killing a couple people around the target's life (preferably someone in a more vulnerable social position than the target, a homeless person by example). The vampire purposely has the target witness the first of these kills early on.
The target starts out unbelieving. The first death witnessed will be recounted to the police. The target will be clear about what they witnessed but also clear that they're well aware that the shock and fear of witnessing that kind of thing messes with your mind.
The point, for Dracula, isn't to let the target just go on. The point is for them to learn that, yes, vampires are real and, yes, there's a vampire stalking their neighborhood... no, them specifically.
Over time, the target becomes aware that this is an actual vampire stalking them. They do what you expect, research. Some mistakes are made (if only for comedic effect). But, some lore is learned. It's the smell of garlic, for instance, which means that having a meal of garlic bread won't work but fresh raw garlic is a means of repulsing vampires. This will, of course, lead to a gearing up montage.
That leads to a final confrontation in which the target thinks he's killed Dracula. He's even prepared for the fake-out death for a second death. The movie closes with a phone call. "Okay," Dracula tells the target. "You did well. You can live."
Throughout this, it might be a good idea for Dracula to have a sidekick. Three brides might be a bit much for a busy manhattanite lifestyle, but one can be good for fun reparte. This can serve the purpose of asking Dracula some questions. Three important questions.
Question 1, asked early on, potentially before the stalking begins. Why the politics? The answer is that the more of a vulnerable underclass there is, the more he has a victim pool to work with. All the easier to kill with.
Question 2, asked after the stalking has begun, potentially after the first kill. Why kill at all? It's obvious, from the "seduction" scene, that Dracula can feed to full need without ending anybody's life. The answer is "what's the use of being a vampire otherwise?"
Question 3, asked at the very end. Why the call? Because knowing that there's a vampire out there that the now-ex-target can't do anything about will be a constant terror. Oh what fun!
With this framework, there can be elements to be expanded in later movies without having to be hints that take over the movie. For instance, the source of corrected information on how silver and garlic works can be expanded, later on, to involve a wider organization. Or not. If this is the only movie, it should be good on its own.
no subject
Also, I think I saw a vampire story with this guy, though he wasn't named "Dracula", and he didn't survive the end of the story. It was the rich & powerful vampire in the 1st episode of Angel. He made the mistake of battening on to Cordelia, assuming she was a powerless human girl whom no one would believe, even if she escaped him and his legal team and ownership of the police and local politicians.
IIRC, Angel pitched him out a window in broad daylight.
Bad guy, surrounded by lawyers: (boasting) "I can do anything!"
Angel: "Can you fly?" (tosses him out the tinted window)
Buffy-verse vamps don't fly, and don't handle sunlight at all well. Oops.
no subject
And, I remember that one.
Current politics would be a part of the point. Though, it could be backdated to something like the 50s or 80s when there's some distance in the politics, but the same themes being handled.
Seed of Bismuth
(Anonymous) 2017-12-02 06:25 pm (UTC)(link)Re: Seed of Bismuth
Any thoughts for another possibility?