Maciej Jankowski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2023
- Messages
- 74
short answer: YES.
Universal Monsters - Viewing Order
- Thread starter Pro Bot
- Start date
Pro Bot
Well-Known Member
They're listed in the Universal Horror history book, so... yeah.
But not specifically as "Universal Monsters" movies, right? So they shouldn't be on here?
Maciej Jankowski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2023
- Messages
- 74
The franchise was called Universal Horror back when the book was written. They recently-ish renamed it to Universal Monsters, so they should still be on here. Besides, both names are used interchangeably. UM is just the more accurate one now.
Pro Bot
Well-Known Member
They're the same thing.
Universal Horror - TV Tropes
Back in The Silent Age of Hollywood and The Golden Age of Hollywood, several of the studios found a genre to build themselves a reputation for in order to stand out from the competition. In the case of Universal Pictures, this genre was horror.
tvtropes.org
Pro Bot
Well-Known Member
Technically speaking, monster doesn't have to refer to a creature. A human character can be a monster. It'd be hard to find a film without some antagonistic force.
Pro Bot
Well-Known Member
The thing you have to understand about UM is that a lot of it never really directly connects, or was a reboot at some point, or seems out of place. Certainly, with statements regarding The Mummy (2017) and the Dark Universe park, plus the footage they used for it, it is definitely one universe now, even though some connections are less sustainable than others. Fun fact, the audio short story on this timeline set in the 1940s titled Halloween Horror Nights: Echoes from the Fog 1x04, "Universal Monsters: Eternal Bloodlines" ties to an amusement featuring the Classic Monsters, particularly Dracula's Daughter. There's easter eggs to Abigail in it, which is confirmed Universal Monsters in interviews too.
Some content is more distant and less connected than others, while sometimes it is. The Mole People had absolutely no connection until the new park referenced it, but it was always part of the universe. I would expect nods to other things too, honestly.
Some content is more distant and less connected than others, while sometimes it is. The Mole People had absolutely no connection until the new park referenced it, but it was always part of the universe. I would expect nods to other things too, honestly.
As far as I can see, Universal reserves the newer "Universal Monsters" branding exclusively for their actual monster movies, and we can't necessarily grandfather-in their monster-less crime mystery movies.
Pro Bot
Well-Known Member
Those movies aren't grandfathered in. The difference is that they were part of the brand originally. From 1913 to 1956, Universal Horror and Universal Monsters were the exact same thing. Talking about the newer Universal Monsters films is somewhat irrelevant since it's completely different and unrelated to said crime mystery movies.
Pro Bot
Well-Known Member
Universal Monsters as a title wasn't even really a thing until the 1990s, by the way.
JudgeDreddpool
Well-Known Member
Ah yes, the whole "Humans are the real Monsters" trope.
Yes, by 'newer "Universal Monsters" branding' below, I'm referring its 1990s-and-on use as a franchise title.
I checked what the Universal Horrors history book had to say.
Secret of the Chateau (1934) is featured as "a creaky, dime-store whodunit that's all but forgotten today. It has little to distinguish it from the dozens of bottom-of-the-bill program mysteries that Hollywood studios cranked out with regularity in the '30s and '40s. Surprisingly, Universal took little advantage of the story's creepy country chateau setting and invested the film with precious few eerie effects. Chills and suspense are sacrificed for a succession of low-level gags. Judging from the film's advertising, however, one would get the impression Secret of the Chateau was a bonafide horror film, or at least a mystery thriller with strong horrific elements."
Life Returns (1935) "is a hopeless, exasperating conglomeration of events and images masquerading as a motion picture. For all the many years that it was out of circulation, fans knew only that Universal had released it and that the title and plotline suggested a borderline science fiction theme, and so hopes were raised. But the cold light of rediscovery revealed a depressingly cheap, incoherent flick built around a questionable scientific achievement."
Night Key (1937) is "neatly constructed to go from straight drama in its opening reels, tilting towards comedy in the mid-section and then winding down into a relatively tense gangster melodrama" [whose] "genre trappings are peripheral aside from some eye-catching scientific gizmos".
Strange Confession (1945) "is a straightforward, well-done B-grade domestic drama cum domestic tragedy"
-
More importantly, none of the strictly crime mysteries are featured in the Universal Horrors book proper, only in Appendix I - Exclusions, Borderline Inclusions, Odds and Ends
These Appendix I mentions include Inside Information (1939) ("strictly cops-and-robbers tomfoolery"), The Lady in the Morgue (1938) ("inconsequential meller"), Danger on the Air (1938) ("murder mystery romp"), Mystery of the White Room (1939) ("barely passable whodunit"), The Witness Vanishes (1939) ("a cozily familiar melodrama"), The Man Who Cried Wolf (1937), The Last Express (1938) and Gambling Ship (1938).Universal Horrors Appendix I said:
Last edited:
Pro Bot
Well-Known Member
Dracula Untold is set March 30th - April, 1462. The bonuses on the blu-ray place it in 1462 and it begins on easter. Just making notes.
I understand that that's a bit annoying. Perhaps tracking those down one day would be helpful documentation. *shrugs*
I appreciate you checking it for yourself.
Films that are relevant enough to add to the book without fitting the horror brand. Still, not everything in that Appendix is included, which was an intentional decision. A lot of stuff was accepted here because of other sources, mainly found by @Maciej Jankowski around a year or so ago. A lot of films were sourced through obscure places, non-English sites, interviews, books, magazines, etc. Unfortunately, he just added the titles and release dates rather than sources because he was doing it for personal use/friends and didn't think he had to, but I do trust his judgement.
I understand that that's a bit annoying. Perhaps tracking those down one day would be helpful documentation. *shrugs*
I read it more as 'Some readers may mistakenly think we missed these titles but we checked and they're not horror and don't fit the book, don't be fooled'
Pro Bot
Well-Known Member
That's a reasonable reading, I'm not arguing with that. Just providing context. The majority of those films are not included for that reason, I'd say.
Pro Bot
Well-Known Member
Pro Bot
Well-Known Member
Not working on that and not particularly planning on it hard, but I do have some notes just in case to make things easier.
JudgeDreddpool
Well-Known Member
JudgeDreddpool
Well-Known Member
But seriously, how? What? Why?! I didn't expect anything anime to be connected to the Universal Monsters timeline.
