How to revive the ‘Dark Universe’

As most of us know by now, earlier this year Universal Studios announced that they were planning to create a shared universe with classic horror characters like The Invisible Man, Frankenstein’s Monster…among others. The first of this series of films was The Mummy (2017), which underperformed domestically in terms of box-office, while also getting very lukewarm-to-poor reviews from the critics.

It’s no surprise then, that today’s news about the departure of producers and writers Alex Kurtzman and Chris Morgan has convinced everyone that this cinematic universe is pretty much dead. At least for the present time!

Unfortunately, that’s what happens when you announce an entire franchise without testing the waters with its first installment beforehand. Yes, as Marvel has proved, cinematic universes are incredibly lucrative, and talented cast ensembles work really well. However, what Marvel did –which Hollywood conveniently chooses to forget- was to build their entire saga after snatching their first success, and not before dealing with a few missteps.

As soon as the reviews for The Mummy became public, most critics declared it a sloppy first entrance for the Dark Universe. And after watching it about a month ago, I have to agree.

Back in October I watched some horror classics for the first time, and two of those were the 1932 and the 1959 versions of The Mummy. Like I mentioned in the reviews of those films, I am more attached to the 1999 version than the previous incarnations of the story, since I saw it twice when I was just eight years old, and we tend to look back nostalgically at the movies that impressed us when we were children.

Stephen Sommers’ movie is a fun and campy ride, and to this day it remains one of my favorite guilty pleasures. It also propelled my obsession with Egyptian culture, my love for young Brendan Fraser, and although it might not be a perfect film, it is very close to what I want from an entertaining blockbuster.

With that in mind, I watched the 2017 version with curiosity. I wanted to see if it would try to recreate the merriment of the Brendan Fraser film, or if it would focus more on the ‘horror’ aspect of the narrative. Unfortunately, Kurtzman’s version does neither, and it’s a muddled mess that required some urgent polishing if it was ever going to launch an entire series of new films.

So, is it possible to resuscitate the Dark Universe?

Of course! Yet, it might require starting from scratch for a second time –that is, considering that Dracula Untold (2014) was originally supposed to launch it.

Reviving the ‘Dark Universe’: What needs to change?

Determine the tone

As I hinted before, one of my biggest problems with The Mummy was that it couldn’t seem to find its footing between horror, goofy comedy and action-adventure. Yes, a film can have elements of multiple genres, and most movies do. Nonetheless, if these elements make you feel like you are watching disjointed sections of three or more different movies which have been sloppily put together… well, then something might be wrong.

With the gloomy logo that preceded the actual film, and which announced its place inside the Dark Universe, I think it’s safe to assume that many of us believed the series would focus a little more on the horror, a la Hammer Films. What we got was…not that. But also not the Sommers’ outlandish yet highly enjoyable tone either.

And here is where it gets complicated, as we wonder: what is the Dark Universe going to add to our experience with these characters?

This is, perhaps, the most important question that producers need to ask this franchise.

By now, we have seen many different incarnations of Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster, the Wolf Man, etc. We have our favorites, and we also have a view of them that has been colored by years of consuming other media that deals with similar characters. So what is the purpose of the Dark Universe? Why are we bringing these monsters back? What timely story can we tell with these characters today?

Not knowing the answer to any of these questions is detrimental to the world-building process. The objective of these movies –and the franchise in general- is what will ultimately define the tone and direction of each individual story.

So, before planning a franchise of ‘x’ amount of films, make sure that the goal for each of them –and for the franchise as a whole- is clear, and build from there.

Understand today’s audience

Speaking of each movie’s purpose, a big part of finding your footing in a cinematic universe –especially if you are working with a reboot- is to make sure you update the material for your spectatorship. And no, it’s not just about making the effects more impressive with today’s technology.

Updating the material also means asking why any story in particular is still relevant to our modern sensibilities. If you were to recreate the ’32 or ’59 versions of The Mummy without changing a single beat, the movie would be just as unsuccessful as this latest adaptation. Keep in mind that many generational gaps have altered our perception of the issues presented in those films.

Imagine, for example, depicting a female character in the same stereotypically weak and whiny way of those old time movies we enjoy nostalgically. The movie would not survive the bashing and scathing criticism!… And with good reason.

Years of conversations regarding gender, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, morality, etc. have to be reflected in the story in one way or another so that it can still be relevant for us. Think of it as the Stranger Things effect: it needs to be a look back at a certain period and its clichés, while also challenging and building from them so that the narrative can speak to a modern audience.

Horror films in the 30s, 60s and 80s are very different from each other, even if they are classified under the same genre. In the 30s, for example, you will find quite a few movies that warn us all about the dangers of science, mad ambition and deal with the mystery of life and death. Is that relevant to us? In what way? Is that our biggest concern? Does it represent a significant communal fear that affects modern society?

The scriptwriters and directors involved in the Dark University must see beyond simply reproducing an old story with a slightly different shade. For these movies to work, they need to find a way to take these well-known stories and explore them in a way that feels original and pertinent to our times.

Improve on what came before

If you look back at the 1959 version of The Mummy, you might be surprised to find interesting and suitable layers of meaning that are mostly suppressed in the most recent version of the tale. For example, when one of the character openly questions the morality of archeological investigation. The film offers a very interesting commentary regarding the appropriation of a culture’s past and possessions for the simple sake of doing so, and with no respect or interest in learning about the culture itself. Wouldn’t that be an interesting aspect to explore, considering how terms like ‘whitewashing’ and ‘cultural appropriation’ have gained popularity in our vocabulary in recent years?

Oddly enough, Kurtzman’s The Mummy stays away from any real examination of this thread of thought. It offers nothing new neither thematically or otherwise.

Visually, this latest version also doesn’t look significantly better than the 1999 adaptation. The design of the new monsters is simply odd and underwhelming, and moments that should surprise us –like the huge sandstorm- seem to be lifted directly from previous movies.

The scriptwriters’ understanding of the mythological, historical and social baggage of the culture they are trying to represent hasn’t improved one bit either. From trying to reduce Set to a role of ‘god of death’ –which he isn’t-, to completely missing the point of how the succession of power worked in Ancient Egypt, there was most likely little research done in favor of continuing a sensationalized version of the culture.

For example, instead of having Ahmanet kill her family out of an incomprehensible revenge –considering she would have probably ruled anyway-, why not explore an actual political intrigue like that of Ramesses III? Why not use a similar tale -death at the hand of conspirators- to justify the mummy’s retaliation?

It’s 2017! We definitely should not be struggling to polish and improve these stories with more consciousness and creativity.

Make it work organically

Beyond the lack of a definitive tone, purpose and vision, the other problem of The Mummy as the stepping-stone of the entire Dark Universe is that it has no backbone. The entire film seems to have been planned with the sole purpose of setting up an entire franchise. This leaves the movie with no soul or identity of its own.

This is glaringly evident in the inclusion of Dr. Jekyll (Russell Crowe), whose entire point is to deliver exposition (including a lengthy voiceover) and serve as a reminder that there is a wider world of monsters out there. So what do we learn from the character? Not much. What does he add to the story? Unnecessary conflict –we already have a perfectly good villain in the mummy itself, remember?-, a longwinded action scene that overstays its welcome, and the promise of more movies to come.

But do we want to see those films?

For the majority of critics and spectators, it seems like the answer is a resounding ‘no’. And it’s quite a shame!

Reviving the Dark Universe requires understanding that you cannot build a cinematic universe a la Marvel in just one film. Take the time, let us explore each of the characters, and let us decide if we want to see the franchise develop or not.

The road ahead for the eventual resuscitation of the Universal monsters will be thorny and complicated. Hopefully, the third time’s the charm, and the next attempt at launching this franchise will come after a process of contemplation regarding the initial plan.

We are counting on you, Universal!