The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor

-Jones-

Member
The Mummy Returns had really good soundtrack and the main theme was catchy. The first film is very well made, but after almost 10 years from its premiere it doesn't hold up as well as IJ trilogy. Well, lets hope to get a really good adventure flick with humour and not some stupid comedy...
 

Michael24

New member
I think it holds up fine. I still watch it on a regular basis and still get a kick out of it. Even the second one.
 

Deckard

New member
I rly hate when they replace a character mid-series. With Harry Potter I could understand because you still have, what? 5-6 movies you need that character for, but with this she could have been written out and replaced.
 

Indy Smith

New member
I'll go and see this one as i love adventure action movies. The second mumy was pretty enjoyable. The only thing that threw me was the crap unfinished scorion king. It just looked too bad that it took me out of the film. I was really enjoying it and then when he came out I just went "OH MY GOD!!!!!" The CGI was not flawless and if it hadn't been representing a real person who we had seen in the flesh then it might not have been bad. I would have preferred it if he was actually just human and perhaps was just a lot more powerful. Like what The Mummy is. The Mummy had human form, but was powerful. We get away with The Mummy being CGI because they only use it when he's half human. Decomposing tissue and rough stuff seems to look better CGI'd than clean skin. Only now with Beowulf have they really started to make a good step towards flawless looking Human CGI.
 

Niteshade007

New member
kongisking said:
Are you F***ING KIDDING ME?????? I don't know whether to laugh my ass off or vomit in disgust! That dialogue is stilted, silly, farcial, and just plain SUCKS!!! I really hope your kidding dude. Are you yankin' our tails? You sure as hell better be....:eek: :eek: :eek:

Did you really think he was serious? Sorry, I know you wrote this a while ago, but seriously?
 

Deckard

New member
Niteshade007 said:
Did you really think he was serious? Sorry, I know you wrote this a while ago, but seriously?

For a moment, I actually did. If your not familiar with someones posts its not that crazy. Ive seen people post more awful ideas at sites like IMDB.
 

Indy Smith

New member
Niteshade007 said:
Did you really think he was serious? Sorry, I know you wrote this a while ago, but seriously?

I am with you. I don't know how anyone could actually think twice that it was a legit extract from a script.
 

Deckard

New member
Indy Smith said:
I am with you. I don't know how anyone could actually think twice that it was a legit extract from a script.

No, I just thought he was making it up like that bcuz he thought it actually sounded good.
 

kongisking

Active member
I thought that it was genuine at first, because I heard that the original draft had a scene sorta like this! I flew into a panic, and admit I probably acted too gullible for my own good. Sorry, guys. Let's just be thankful it's a joke, right? :eek:
 

kongisking

Active member
Indy Smith said:
What does gullible mean?

Okay, okay, I get it...sheesh, I admitted it, okay? :rolleyes: :p

In case you are actually serious, it means "to be easily deceived or naiive enough to believe anything."
 

Deckard

New member
I told this kid back in 7th grade someone had written gullible on the ceiling. We were in the lunchroom that doubled as a gym and the ceiling was about 50 feet tall but he spent the rest of lunch period looking around the ceiling for writing...
 

Niteshade007

New member
kongisking said:
Okay, okay, I get it...sheesh, I admitted it, okay? :rolleyes: :p

In case you are actually serious, it means "to be easily deceived or naiive enough to believe anything."

Haha, I love how you told him anyway...

You know, that word isn't in the dictionary.
 

Michael24

New member
Indy Smith said:
The only thing that threw me was the crap unfinished scorion king. It just looked too bad that it took me out of the film. I was really enjoying it and then when he came out I just went "OH MY GOD!!!!!" The CGI was not flawless and if it hadn't been representing a real person who we had seen in the flesh then it might not have been bad.

Yeah, the Scorpion King's appearance at the end is about the only thing I didn't like about the movie. Stephen Sommers and Bob Ducsay later noted their disappointment with how it turned out and said, "We learned a lesson on that one."
 

sandiegojones

New member
Michael24 said:
Yeah, the Scorpion King's appearance at the end is about the only thing I didn't like about the movie. Stephen Sommers and Bob Ducsay later noted their disappointment with how it turned out and said, "We learned a lesson on that one."

Yeah, the Scorpion King and crappy looking balloon at the end threw me off in "Returns". The Rock's face looked way too plastic! To be honest the first hour is really entertaining (the bus chase & stuff) and I like the pigmy scene and the soundtrack, but at lot of it was re-hashed from the first film so I pretty much pretend it doesn't exist. Again, I feel the studio rushed it since The Mummy was a surprise hit and Sommers just created a flimsy story (main characters being reincarnations of real Egyptians?) around some left over action scenes. I mean, the Imhotep water thing was the same as the sand storm in the first film and the Izzy character was pretty much the same as the pilot in the first one too. Also, I really felt at the time it was too influenced by the type of editing and action effects in Gladiator and The Matrix which a lot of films were doing then (again, probably requested by the studio to get that audience) so the action scenes felt very different than the first (something that Indy films are good at retaining from film to film). The Scorpion King effect did lead to Davy Jones and others in the "Pirates" film so ILM definitely perfected the realism.
 

Katarn07

New member
Niteshade007 said:
Haha, I love how you told him anyway...

I didn't even notice that until you quoted him! Amazing! This whole section of the topic has made me laugh out loud. :D
 

Deckard

New member
Katarn07 said:
I didn't even notice that until you quoted him! Amazing! This whole section of the topic has made me laugh out loud. :D

I think everyone just wonders into this thread when there tired and drunk. :p
 

Michael24

New member
sandiegojones said:
Yeah, the Scorpion King and crappy looking balloon at the end threw me off in "Returns". The Rock's face looked way too plastic! To be honest the first hour is really entertaining (the bus chase & stuff) and I like the pigmy scene and the soundtrack, but at lot of it was re-hashed from the first film so I pretty much pretend it doesn't exist. Again, I feel the studio rushed it since The Mummy was a surprise hit and Sommers just created a flimsy story (main characters being reincarnations of real Egyptians?) around some left over action scenes. I mean, the Imhotep water thing was the same as the sand storm in the first film and the Izzy character was pretty much the same as the pilot in the first one too. Also, I really felt at the time it was too influenced by the type of editing and action effects in Gladiator and The Matrix which a lot of films were doing then (again, probably requested by the studio to get that audience) so the action scenes felt very different than the first (something that Indy films are good at retaining from film to film). The Scorpion King effect did lead to Davy Jones and others in the "Pirates" film so ILM definitely perfected the realism.

One of the reasons I was able to like THE MUMMY RETURNS was because I thought it was actually more than just a re-tread of the first film. Sure, there's some similarities, but I liked that it had sort of a different tone and did something at least interesting with the characters. Like making Evy a feisty chick who could now hold her own in a fight, and the whole reincarnation angle. Sommers had even said he and the cast only agreed to a sequel if they could do something different. He saw the first movie as a "tomb film" so wanted to make the sequel a "sand film." Sounds confusing, but I got what he was talking about.

That's why I'm a big fan of Sommers. Others may disagree, but I find him to be rather creative and I like the neat angles he approaches his films from and what he does with them. I'm excited to see what he does with G.I. JOE next year, even though it'll be his film that he hasn't written.
 

Indy Smith

New member
The thing about the first mummy film is that you can only compare it to other movies of it's genre and style. Then with the Mummy Returns they start comparing it to the previous film. You can draw similarities from anything nowadays.
 

sandiegojones

New member
I think a trailer for this is due sometime soon too.

I had forgotten that IJ and the Emperor's Tomb game had a similar story line as this film. Some of the photos and behind the scenes videos make this look pretty cool though! I think Maria Bello will be good and although Cohen has directed a few bad films, I liked Dragonheart and think this could be a better genre film for him. I'm not expecting "Raiders" but I hope it's not too cheesy and contrived as The Mummy Returns.
 
Top