Universal's 'The Mummy' (2017 movie)*

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Karnak, Nov 14, 2015.

  1. Karnak

    Karnak "81-82-83-84..." Thread Starter

    Southern Ont.
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2015
  2. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Hollywood, USA
    Stupid. You know, I liked the first remake in 1999, and I was really impressed with how seamlessly they integrated effects into the film to create a vast Egyptian village, ancient ruins, and so on. But it got lame very quickly with the ones after that. In particular, Brendan Fraser's son was one of the worst kid actors I've ever seen. A lotta WTF moments in The Mummy Returns.

    I'm a huge fan of the 1930s/1940s Universal Mummy movies, but I think this is a tough series to remake for modern audiences.
  3. Karnak

    Karnak "81-82-83-84..." Thread Starter

    Southern Ont.
    Perhaps that change of the villain away from Egypt is part of remaking this for today's audience. But then it moves away from the whole Universal 'Mummy' legacy.
    I only saw 'The Mummy Returns' once and that was enough. The way they introduced the pharaoh and treachery of his wife in the 1999 film was so nicely done(and in the spirit of previous films). When it got to the point of having the two women fight to the death, that time travellin' helicopter, & reincarnation thrown in for good measure...
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2015
  4. Really? I think after the 1933 and 1940 versions (the latter was really a remake of the former) that most of them were a waste of space.

    I liked the 1999 remake, the first sequel was solid but the third just didn't work. Rebooting it once again after the well made 1999 Stephen Sommers flick is goi g to be tough.
    Karnak likes this.
  5. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Hollywood, USA
    I think they have a charm and some occasionally scary moments. No question, I'm looking at them through the veil of nostalgia and understanding how they were in the 1940s. And I first saw them in as a kid in the 1960s, so my point of view is very subjective.
    MikaelaArsenault and Karnak like this.
  6. PaulKTF

    PaulKTF Forum Resident

    It will give them something to make a new theme park ride out of it, I guess.
  7. Spaghettiows

    Spaghettiows Forum Resident

    Silver Creek, NY
    I think I read somewhere on the internet (so it must be true) that Universal has some kind of master plan to release remakes of their classic 1930s/1940s monster films. I believe that the rationale is that they own the rights to these properties, or at least the iconic imagery associated with the Universal versions of the films, and would like to find a way to use them, and are throwing out The Mummy to test the market.

    So if The Mummy succeeds, expect to also see The Bride of Frankenstein, The Wolfman and the rest of the gang.
  8. When Universal announced they were doing this it was in the wake of Marvel/Disney, Lucasfilm/ Disney and Warner/DC plans to roll things out I suspect they needed to show shareholders they were serious, too and there are only so many properties they can exploit that they own free and clear.

    I'm sure if the latest Frankenstein movie does well Universal will amp up things. They did try this before with Stephen Sommers Van Helsing which was largely a disaster.
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2015
  9. captainsolo

    captainsolo Forum Resident

    Murfreesboro, TN
    The original is unforgettable, Mummy's Hand is wonderful fun and the other three are super cheap quickies done for bottom of the bill filler. But they do go along a timeline of sorts and what happens to the protagonists of Hand later on does take some balls to pull off. (Always found the timeline funny, as it puts the later films into the 70's or 90's)
    Chaney never wanted to play Kharis and is quite awful in that he has nothing to do but stagger around. That said he does come off as imposing in some shots but never to the degree that I could prefer him over Tyler with the creepy blacked out eyes.
    As soon as they made the mummy brainless with the tana leaf brew etc, it lost all its power and didnt get it back until Lee's performance in the 1959 Hammer classic.
    The 1999 remake is mostly one of Hand by way of wanting to be Indiana Jones. Viewed now though it really doesn't hold up and neither do a number of the effects. The sequel was pretty awful but I must admit the third one had a touch of the old super cheap and really stupid Uni end of cycle sequel feel.

    The studio keeps trying to get this off the ground but they keep making really terrible and misguided pictures thus setting it back a couple years each time. And all the better for it because I don't think they can ever do anything right by these in today's market. They need to remember the atmosphere, pathos and almost otherworldly qualities-then make a truly good first pictures for two characters and only THEN a crossover- basically making the strong FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLFMAN that should have been what we got in 1943.

    But a new Mummy movie...with that premise linked to above? Please just someone stop them.
    MikaelaArsenault and Vidiot like this.
  10. tommy-thewho

    tommy-thewho Forum Resident

    detroit, mi
    I really enjoyed the 1999 movie. Sequels got worse and worse.
    MikaelaArsenault, Vidiot and Karnak like this.
  11. Really? I just watched the first two Sommers flicks and they hold up remarkably well. Just a few of the effects shots don't hold up but the rest hold up fairly well.

    I agree with you regarding the 1940's Mummy movies with Chaney. They are boring.
  12. erniebert

    erniebert Shoe-string audiophile

    Toronto area
    Evy was hot in the second one.
  13. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    Original fine I guess.
    Never rated this tombed toilet paperman.
  14. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Hollywood, USA
    They don't own the original characters to Frankenstein, Dracula or The Mummy, but they own the character names and the original Jack Pierce classic makeup designs. Universal has successfully sued several toy manufacturers who have tried to make rubber Frankenstein masks with the bolts through the neck, and they've gone after a few other filmmakers. I think Young Frankenstein paid a licensing fee to use a "similar" character design in the Mel Brooks film.

    I would much rather Universal try to develop whole new characters and new stories. Unfortunately, the industry is caught in this deadly cycle of releasing endless sequels and franchises, which is perplexing and sad.

    I agree. The Mummy's Tomb claims to take place 30 years after the events of The Mummy's Hand, which make no sense since both pretty much feel like the 1930s or so. What is funny to me is that most of the movies bring back the heroes of the previous films, then have the Mummy kill them off and go after new people. It's a bizarre way to continue the storyline.

    I think even though they are cheap movies, they're a lot of fun and do some funny, clever things in them. I do agree that Lon Chaney Jr. clearly didn't like doing the role, but I enjoyed the series quite a bit. I think the most bizarre one had to be the last one, The Mummy's Curse, where a modern woman is said to be the incarnation of a woman the Mummy had been in love with. At the end, she somehow turns into a 5000-year-old woman (!!!) and the Mummy carries her into quicksand, where they both evaporate into mud and dust. Makes absolutely no sense, but it's a very memorable WTF moment.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2015
  15. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Forum Resident

    Not surprised.
  16. fitzysbuna

    fitzysbuna Forum Resident

    I would rather just a new movie with Brendan Frazer & John Hannah that continues it .
  17. Encuentro

    Encuentro Forum Resident

    I'll just leave this here for y'all. Before you criticize the trailer, just remember that Tom Cruise loves you! :)
    MikaelaArsenault and Vidiot like this.
  18. dkmonroe

    dkmonroe A completely self-taught idiot

    This trailer is proof that Tom Cruise hates us all. :laugh:
  19. soundboy

    soundboy Forum Resident

    I keep wondering when the "Mission: Impossible" will start playing.
  20. budwhite

    budwhite Climb the mountains and get their good tidings.

    Götaland, Sverige
    That was horrible for a Mummy movie. Has TC lost it for real this time :winkgrin:
  21. Rocker

    Rocker Forum Resident

    Ontario, Canada
    I've already got quite a few other mummy-related films in my collection...

    The Mummy (1932)
    The Mummy's Hand (1940)
    The Mummy's Tomb (1942)
    The Mummy's Ghost (1944)
    The Mummy's Curse (1944)
    The Mummy (1959)
    Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (1964)
    The Mummy's Shroud (1967)
    Blood From the Mummy's Tomb (1971)
    Dawn of the Mummy (1981)
    Tale of the Mummy (1998)
    The Mummy (1999)
    The Mummy Returns (2001)
    The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)

    ... so I'll probably end up checking out this new remake too. :p
    MikaelaArsenault and Oatsdad like this.
  22. dkmonroe

    dkmonroe A completely self-taught idiot

    Brendan Fraser has gotta be punching a wall somewhere. They traded him in for someone who's 6 years older than he is. That's not how it's supposed to work. :laugh:
    MikaelaArsenault and smilin ed like this.
  23. Thievius

    Thievius Blue Öyster Cultist

    Big action set pieces - check
    Big explosions - check
    Making the mummy a "badass chick" - check
    Tom Cruise as the protagonist - check

    Yup, that sounds like a mummy flick in 2017.

  24. skimminstones

    skimminstones Forum Resident

    Bexley, UK
    i liked the remakes but partly because i used to fancy the **** off Rachel Weisz
    MikaelaArsenault and Karnak like this.
  25. Encuentro

    Encuentro Forum Resident

    Yes, but the person they traded him in for us Tom F**king Cruise. Box office gold Tom Cruise. Brendan Fraser may be a good actor, but he's not box office gold Tom Cruise. Tommy just has to show up, and it would be a hit. He doesn't even have to move. He could just sit in a chair for two hours, and people would pay to see it.

Share This Page