This post contains spoilers forThe Mummy.

InThe Mummy,Sofia Boutella’s long-undead character fails twice at the same mission: infecting a “chosen” mortal with the god of death’s spirit, so that she can have an immortal life partner. It’s. . . perhaps not the most relatable struggle to most of us mere mortals, but it stands to reason that the folks at Universal can identify with her. The film, which debuted at No. 2 over the weekend with a mere $32.2 million haul, marks the studio’s second disappointing stab at launching its Dark Universe—a collection of films drawing on the studio’s original horror franchise, Universal Monsters. (Think those black-and-white classics about Dracula, Frankenstein’s monster, and the Wolf Man.) Whispers havealready begun about what this might mean for the seemingly cursed would-be cinematic universe, but it also inspires another question: why is Universal having such a hard time succeeding at a form it helped create?

Universal Monsters was an early pioneer when it came to shared cinematic universes. 1931 saw the releases of bothDracula andFrankenstein, giving Universal a dominant position when it came to studio horror. After that, the studio started pumping out films centered on classic villains—including the Mummy, the Invisible Man, and the Wolf Man. In 1943, after a spate of sequels, the Wolf Man’s followup film came with a twist:Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man made history as the first studio crossover film. Later, 1944’sHouse of Frankenstein brought together the Wolf Man, Dracula, and Frankenstein’s monster, a sort of horror-tinged Avengers.

This was not a “cinematic universe” in the same way we use the term today: the worlds created by Marvel and its rivals are far more intricately plotted and self-serious than Universal Monsters ever was. (We’re guessing the modern equivalents of Abbott and Costello would never be given the chance tomeet Iron Man.) Still, the studio played a pivotal role in movie history by inventing this conceit—which makes the contemporary Universal’s fumbling Dark Universe so disheartening.

In 2014,Dracula Untold was supposed to be Universal’s inaugural stab at launching a cinematic universe—but it flopped. 2017’sThe Mummy was the studio’s second attempt, and came with a big marketing push that included announcing a star-studded line-up for future films. (One of those characters,Russell Crowe’s Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde, is also featured inThe Mummy.) Now the prognosis is not looking great for this universe’s future so far. Why is Universal struggling so hard?

The problem appears to be twofold: first, audiences—at least domestically—have demonstrated minimal interest in the franchise so far; and second,The Mummy is overly busy and derivative. With every quippyTom Cruise one-liner and nod toward the interconnected future to come—hello, lingering shot of a monster skull—The Mummy shows its hand, and its strain. The best entries in cinematic universes are the ones that defy norms and stand as refreshing experiences in their own right.Wonder Woman, for example, is a story of female power—told by a female director—at a time when that narrative is desperately needed.Guardians of the Galaxy was a fun-filled summer outing that came just as Marvel fatigue started setting in due to too many monotonous entries.The Mummy, on the other hand, is a film that seems less interested in forging its own identity than it was in cobbling together various elements that have proven successful in other movies.

That said, Universal may come out on top yet, thanks to the global box office.The Mummy pulled$20 million more at its Chinese opening than it did stateside, a career-high haul for Cruise in that market. Movies likeWarcraft have proven before that domestic box office is certainly not only avenue to success anymore. And asKevin Lincoln points out inVulture, overseas box office seems to be a key part of Universal’s plan—as evidenced by the casting of older stars including Crowe, Cruise, and Depp, all of whom bring reliably big hauls at the foreign box office.

The Hollywood Reporter also notes that the budget for Dark Universe films could vary widely, with lower-budget projects intermingled with the blowoutMummy-style blockbusters. This shared universe’s connective tissue will also be fairly relaxed:The Mummy sees its villain placed back in a sarcophagus and Cruise’s character riding off into the sunset, albeit with a promise that he could easily return—indeed,will likely return—if needed. There is not, however, a cheeky post-credits sequence teasing the next link in the chain, a la the superhero films made by Marvel and D.C. That relaxed approach could help Universal’s films stand apart from one another; some could succeed and some could tank, leaving Universal to reap the profits of the difference. In other words, the future of the Dark Universe does not rely entirely onThe Mummy’s lackluster back.

It’s true that familiar I.P. hasn’t seen great returns lately; just askBaywatch andAlien: Covenant. But monster movie sequels have been a time-honored tradition in the Universal canon, and asBride of Frankenstein proved decades ago, the studio can add value and novelty to these time-tested stories. The question now, then, is this: will Universal pull together a diverse, interesting stable of directors and give them leeway to keep their eyes on their own papers? Or will it continue to take misguided cues from others?