Halloween Horror Nights 2026 (USH) - Speculation & Rumors

[Freak]

You know, I look back at 2023 and it was clear where that was the year there was a clear budget boost. They added two shows and all but one house had almost no black walls.

Since this past year was the most successful ever and it’s looking like we’re getting nine houses and some high-budget IPs, I wonder if it looks like this will be yet another investment push?

 

[Wishmaster]

I expect Blumhouse to represent in some way or form but not from the Mummy. I saw the reboot and it’s gonna be the worst horror film of 2026. Blumhouse better get it together in terms of quality films if they wanna continue having IPs at HHN.

 

[LPCaptainDeath]

I expect Blumhouse to represent is some way or form but not from the Mummy. I saw the reboot and it’s gonna be the worst horror film of 2026. Blumhouse better get it together in terms of quality films if they wanna continue having IPs at HHN.

It's been renamed The Resurrected to distance itself from anything Mummy-related.

 

[Wishmaster]

It's been renamed The Resurrected to distance itself from anything Mummy-related.

The new title is the best part of the new film. The movie itself is still terrible.

 

[rageofthegods]

That's genuinely unfortunate, I was looking forward to it.

I think a genuine problem for Blumhouse's brand perception is that they've been less able to bury their unsuccessful efforts as they've moved into higher budget movies. They made a lot of clunkers during their peak, but those generally got chucked to VOD or limited release while the better movies went wide theatrically (nothing wrong with that, that's what happens when you take a lot of shots, some will miss). That's easier to do with a $3m movie than a $15m one.

 

[Clive]

That's genuinely unfortunate, I was looking forward to it.

I think a genuine problem for Blumhouse's brand perception is that they've been less able to bury their unsuccessful efforts as they've moved into higher budget movies. They made a lot of clunkers during their peak, but those generally got chucked to VOD or limited release while the better movies went wide theatrically. That's easier to do with a $3m movie than a $15m one.

This is exactly right. Blumhouse famously/notoriously did not guarantee theatrical releases for the grand majority of its films for a long time. (Sequels to successful films usually had a theatrical guarantee, as did films that required a partnership with an external brand or IP, like Ouija.) If it's clear a film isn't coming together or just isn't going to work at the level that warrants a theatrical release, they more or less invested as little as possible in postproduction to reach a "minimum viable product," at which point it got shuttled to whoever was willing to pay for it. Sometimes that meant Netflix (a better-than-usual result). In others, it meant straight to VOD, or marooned on some channel you've never heard of.

And to be clear, this happened even with name talent attached. Who remembers The Keeping Hours, a supernatural drama starring Lee Pace and Carrie Coon? The film was almost entirely abandoned and given no real release.

Blumhouse could afford to do this because their films cost so little. Their usual limit for a new feature film that didn't involve an external IP was $5 million for a long time. Many were produced for under $3m, or even $1m. Inflation and other production realities has raised that ceiling up to closer to $15 million, now. To Rage's point, it's much, much harder to shrug off a production that cost you $10 million+. It's also why you see Blumhouse taking fewer risks and more "safe" sequel and IP plays.