MovieChat Forums > Masters of the Universe (1987) Discussion > Movies that were supposed to launch fran...

Movies that were supposed to launch franchises (but didn’t): Masters of the Universe

posted 6 years ago by TMC-4 (19392)
6 replies | jump to latest

https://lebeauleblog.com/2017/12/29/movies-that-were-supposed-to-launch-franchises-but-didnt-masters-of-the-universe/

It’s not unusual for movies to inspire toys. But up until recently, it was pretty rare for a movie to be based on a toyline. The 1987 sci-fi saga, Masters of the Universe, was one of the first attempts to launch a movie franchise based on plastic action figures. But due to bad timing, budgetary constraints and a host of other factors, He-Man did not have the power to conquer the box office. Instead, the planned sequel was scrapped and the sets were re-purposed for a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie. It’s another tale of epic failure from Cannon Films.

[–] MickyMac (2935) 6 years ago

If the film had been made in 1985 and not produced by Cannon Films thing could've been very different. And if it was made in the late 2000's to now it would never receive such a low budget, it would be like a Lord Of The Rings type production, be chock full of very expensive special effects.

The new He-Man would have a better chance of success for one it can trade on years of history and nostalgia and not take place on earth to save money.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 6 years ago

"if it was made in the late 2000's to now it would never receive such a low budget, it would be like a Lord Of The Rings type production"

Interesting fact: The Lord of the Rings trilogy didn't use such a huge budget. If my memory's right, Return of the Kings only cost 91 million $ to make. This is VERY low for that kind of huge production.

How was this possible? Peter Jackson saved a LOT of money by filming most of the scenes outside instead of doing it in a studio. It cost way less to simply go and shoot in a forrest than to rent a studio for a long amount of time and doing most of the thing in front of a green screen.

[–] MickyMac (2935) 6 years ago

Masters Of The Universe cost 22 million dollars lower than LOTR. LOTR was made in 2001 not late 2000s(2007,08,09).

MOTU could've used forest or desert locations with proper studio backing not 1980's Earth.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 6 years ago

Okay... Cool. But I wasn't comparing LotR's budget to MofU's budget. I just wanted to point out the fact that he didn't really use a good example of what is considered a "huge budget" movie because LotR cost way less than MANY blockbusters.

[–] MickyMac (2935) 6 years ago

Wouldn't consider 91 million low budget, films cost 200 million too much now. MOTU needed a bigger budget to shoot at locations a Star Wars film would use.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 6 years ago

It isn't "low" budget, of course. We could also look at this that way: the complete trilogy was shot at the same time, so we could consider the total cost which is of 280 millions. Considering that we talk about three HUGE movies with a lot of costumes, sets, visual effects, long running times, many known actors and adapted froma successful book trilogy, I would say that it is not a "huge" budget neither.

Take in consideration that the cost to make all the three movies was not far from the cost of Avatar alone (which was of 237 millions). Here again, Avatar has a "modest" budget compared to movies like Pirates of the Caribbean 3 and 4 or Justice League which had exaggerated budgets and each cost more than the entire LotR trilogy (and I don't think anyone would say that they gave more than LotR).

So yeah, while I wouldn't call LotR a "low" budget movie, I wouldn't call it "high" budget neither.

And then, there's The Hobbit trilogy...

*Update*: Just checked another source, and apparently the LotR trilogy cost 260 millions. Actually I can be more accurate if I simply check each movie's individual budget and then I add up the numbers I would get the right amount but well... I'm lazy haha.