The Mummy (2017)

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
curmudgeon said:
A little thematic styling wouldn't have killed them, would it?

What about four eyes. I lost hope at that scene. I'll see it because Tom Cruise is always entertaining. But beyond that...
 

roundshort

Active member
Pale Horse said:
What about four eyes. I lost hope at that scene. I'll see it because Tom Cruise is always entertaining. But beyond that...

Agreed, way too much of a CGI s&*tstorm for me. But, It is Tom Cruise and I always see Tom's movies.

I was hop9ng to se a good rebirth of monster movies. 2016 was a GREAT year for quailty non-gore porn horror movies and Thrillers (Light's out, Don't Breath, conjuring 2, Ouija, OoE, etc.

I woudl love see some quaitly monstermovies. Cloverfield was a step in right direction.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
Russell Crowe gives me hope that this won't be a terrible and/or typical Summer blockbuster. That said, there are a couple of interesting tidbits that give this version hope; otherwise, there's nothing overtly compelling about this trailer make me stand up and take notice.


If this was a period picture, I'd be on board. Right now? Home video. Maybe.


The tag line is still cool.
 

IndyBuff

Well-known member
I'm not impressed. It's an unnecessary reboot of a franchise that only had one or two good films to start with. I wish after The Mummy Returns they had dropped the mummy motif and had Fraser's character expand into other adventures. They had the chance to make a fun, Indy-lite series with period pieces and new characters and instead they turned it into a recycled joke. I'm not convinced this reboot is going to do much to solve that.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
IndyBuff said:
I'm not convinced this reboot is going to do much to solve that.

I think movie watchers of late forget one piece of moviemaking that is most key. Studios make movies to make MONEY. This movie will solve that problem.

We all say we want art and true storytelling with rich environments, but we support the opposite with our monies going both the films, and to larger corporate sponsors who want differently. (That is, to make money)

We're all hypocritical viewers in that sense. Unless you're a pirate. Then you're taking what you want without giving anything back. :hat:

I'm not calling you out IB, just pointing out something that bothers me about what people say they want and what they truly support.

Argument as old as time really.
 

IndyBuff

Well-known member
Pale Horse said:
I think movie watchers of late forget one piece of moviemaking that is most key. Studios make movies to make MONEY. This movie will solve that problem.

We all say we want art and true storytelling with rich environments, but we support the opposite with our monies going both the films, and to larger corporate sponsors who want differently. (That is, to make money)

We're all hypocritical viewers in that sense. Unless you're a pirate. Then you're taking what you want without giving anything back. :hat:

I'm not calling you out IB, just pointing out something that bothers me about what people say they want and what they truly support.

Argument as old as time really.

You're right and I get what you're saying. The reason these things exist is because studios will always side with whatever makes the most money and we're all guilty of giving our hard-earned dollars to schlock at one point or another. Heck, I went with my family to see The Scorpion King, so I have to face my own hypocrisy on this issue too.:sick:

For all I know this film may be great, or it may be terrible. I like a wide range of films, from classics and indie films to blockbusters and huge franchises. I'm not picky but aside from easy money there's zero point to rebooting the Mummy franchise at this point. Obviously the name-brand recognition and "edgier" tone may be enough to sway audiences; I guess I just lost interest in it after the tepid third movie. Ultimately audiences will decide but I'll be sitting this one out. I don't frequent theaters much anymore so maybe I'm just too cheap and picky to know what's hot anymore!:hat:
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
IndyBuff said:
I don't frequent theaters much anymore so maybe I'm just too cheap and picky to know what's hot anymore!:hat:

Voting with your wallet. Kudos. Your next beverage is on me.
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
dark-universe-cast.jpg


Javier Bardem (Frankenstein?s monster) and Johnny Depp (Invisible Man) added to Universal's Dark universe. David Koepp will write Bride of Frankenstein, up next, due February 2009. Sizzle reel:


Dracula and Wolfman not yet (re)cast.
 

IndyBuff

Well-known member
Maybe it's just me but is anyone else tired of everything needed to be some big, connected universe?
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Notre Dame and Palais Garnier are only 3 km apart. How about Hunchback vs Phantom in present day? Les Misérables needed more underground scenes, as described in this Paris UX article.
 

curmudgeon

Well-known member
IndyBuff said:
Maybe it's just me but is anyone else tired of everything needed to be some big, connected universe?

In fairness, the original Universal monster line was a shared universe six decades before shared universes were the hot film trend.

It's sort of a pity that people are treating the rebooted line like its copying Marvel, when Universal first started crossing over its monsters in the 1940's.
 

IndyBuff

Well-known member
curmudgeon said:
In fairness, the original Universal monster line was a shared universe six decades before shared universes were the hot film trend.

It's sort of a pity that people are treating the rebooted line like its copying Marvel, when Universal first started crossing over its monsters in the 1940's.

I didn't mind it initially but now it seems like every studio is trying to do this. If people are still into it then I guess it's understandable why they'll keep going with a winning formula.
 

JasonMa

Active member
I can only think of 4 shared universes and 3 of the 4 have precedent

Marvel - Obviously the universe is shared in the comics
DC - Ditto
Universal Monsters - This was a shared universe when they were first developed

The only "stretch" I see is the combined Godzilla/King Kong universe which we really haven't seen yet
 

TheFedora

Active member
Unsure how I feel about this. But yes, seems at least some of the monsters will work together. I mean we already have Mr Hyde in the Mummy and Invisible Man...thing that concerns me though is how all this ties in organically
 

AndyLGR

Active member
curmudgeon said:
In fairness, the original Universal monster line was a shared universe six decades before shared universes were the hot film trend.

It's sort of a pity that people are treating the rebooted line like its copying Marvel, when Universal first started crossing over its monsters in the 1940's.
Great post and its something that seems to have been lost sight of. I wonder if the advent of these new movies will also see some reissues of the original classics.
 

WilliamBoyd8

Active member
"The Mummy" with Tom Cruise, movie review mentions Our Man

In ?The Mummy? Tom Cruise suffers a pain in the sarcophagus
By Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune

The idea, I think, with ?The Mummy? was to give unfamiliar audiences every kind of modern, effects-heavy horror fantasy in one. Cruise plays Nick, wisecracking American belligerence incarnate, and therefore in 2017 America, at least, an instant turnoff. He?s a U.S. Army soldier with a sideline as a soldier of fortune, ripping off precious artifacts for resale while ripping off Indiana Jones so blatantly that he might as well be called Indiana Smith.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/...-tom-cruise-suffers-a-pain-in-the-sarcophagus

:)
 
Top