Post by Prime etc. on Mar 19, 2020 0:56:18 GMT
Such a dumb article.
The old Hammer was a England-based family company that apart from getting a Queen's award for industry was not widely regarded by critics or corporate media of the time. Audiences on the other hand liked their films.
Blumhouse is a corporation media pet--they get massive advertising boosts thanks to their woke propaganda approach.
Hammer was not so restricted in hiring or content. The fact that Peter Cushing kills Dracula is considered one of the most exciting moments--unlike the 1931 Dracula where they seem to have predicted the fears of toxic masculinity since David Manners does nothing to stop Dracula and Van Helsing is an old man who kills Dracula offscreen (despite it being pre-code).
What's impressive with old Hammer is that unlike the old Universal films, it enjoys practically zero corporate boosting and yet has a sizable fan base to this day.
Blumhouse is filling the gap left by the departure of the Weinstein Company. The so-called "independent" Hollywood.
But it is a Hollywood company and globalist-it has nothing in common with Hammer of Bray Studios.
With the success of The Invisible Man, the independent studio behind Get Out plans to update further classic horror stories. Next up: Dracula
After the unexpected success of The Invisible Man, a low-budget adaptation of the HG Wells novel that tapped into contemporary fears around stalking and toxic masculinity, the film industry’s appetite for the hoary old staples of classic horror appears to have reawakened, like a shambling zombie emerging from a freshly-dug grave. Blumhouse, the independent studio behind The Invisible Man as well as hits such as Get Out, The Hunt and Happy Death Day, has just announced its latest project: a new version of that genre favourite, Dracula. With a string of successes behind it, and a newfound predilection for the classic stories that have transfixed generations of horror fans, Blumhouse now resembles nothing less than a modern-day version of Hammer, the British production company whose name became a byword for terror in the 1950s and 60s.
Hammer is arguably most renowned for immortalising Dracula featuring Christopher Lee as the suave, aristocratic bloodsucker in a string of baroque, highly coloured films; their stable of stars also included Peter Cushing who played (among others) Van Helsing to Lee’s Dracula, Victor Frankenstein and Sherlock Holmes. Much revered for its gory, gaudy approach, Hammer profited by an agreement with Universal studios, whose “horror cycle” of the 1930s introduced these stories to mass cinema audiences, featuring the likes of Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff.
After the unexpected success of The Invisible Man, a low-budget adaptation of the HG Wells novel that tapped into contemporary fears around stalking and toxic masculinity, the film industry’s appetite for the hoary old staples of classic horror appears to have reawakened, like a shambling zombie emerging from a freshly-dug grave. Blumhouse, the independent studio behind The Invisible Man as well as hits such as Get Out, The Hunt and Happy Death Day, has just announced its latest project: a new version of that genre favourite, Dracula. With a string of successes behind it, and a newfound predilection for the classic stories that have transfixed generations of horror fans, Blumhouse now resembles nothing less than a modern-day version of Hammer, the British production company whose name became a byword for terror in the 1950s and 60s.
Hammer is arguably most renowned for immortalising Dracula featuring Christopher Lee as the suave, aristocratic bloodsucker in a string of baroque, highly coloured films; their stable of stars also included Peter Cushing who played (among others) Van Helsing to Lee’s Dracula, Victor Frankenstein and Sherlock Holmes. Much revered for its gory, gaudy approach, Hammer profited by an agreement with Universal studios, whose “horror cycle” of the 1930s introduced these stories to mass cinema audiences, featuring the likes of Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff.
It looks as though Blumhouse has pulled off a similar trick, as its recent Invisible Man, backed by Universal, is largely credited with reinvigorating the studio’s beleaguered “Dark Universe”, conceived as the horror-movie answer to multi-part film series such as Marvel or Star Wars, but which stumbled with the failure of its first high-profile offering, The Mummy, starring Tom Cruise and Russell Crowe, in 2017. The Mummy cost around $125m to make, and only managed to muster $80m in its home market (though was somewhat rescued by overseas box office, resulting in $409m in total worldwide takings). In contrast, this year’s Invisible Man cost $7m, and has so far made its cost back many times over, at $105m globally.
For Alan Jones, horror film expert and co-director of horror festival FrightFest, the comparison between Blumhouse and Hammer is a valid one, but there are certain key differences. “[Blumhouse CEO] Jason Blum is very clever: he surrounds himself with superfans and genre fans. Hammer never did that: I’ve met quite a few of the original people, and to be honest they had no real love for the genre; it was just a business. Obviously it’s a business for Blum too, but there is a bit more fandom in the background at Blumhouse and they are trying to do right by the properties. That’s the main difference.”
For Alan Jones, horror film expert and co-director of horror festival FrightFest, the comparison between Blumhouse and Hammer is a valid one, but there are certain key differences. “[Blumhouse CEO] Jason Blum is very clever: he surrounds himself with superfans and genre fans. Hammer never did that: I’ve met quite a few of the original people, and to be honest they had no real love for the genre; it was just a business. Obviously it’s a business for Blum too, but there is a bit more fandom in the background at Blumhouse and they are trying to do right by the properties. That’s the main difference.”
