The Technodrome Forums

The Technodrome Forums (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/index.php)
-   TV and Movies (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   The Mummy Remake (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/showthread.php?t=56947)

TigerClaw 12-01-2016 10:26 AM

The Mummy Remake
 
Universal just released a poster and a little trailer sneak peak of there remake of The Mummy, It stars Tom Cruise and it also has Russell Crowe playing as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, The Mummy is female this time, the film is set on present day and it's part of the Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe, The full trailer will debut on Sunday.
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/horro...-sneak-a147200



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CymKKndUoAAr3Zi.jpg

TigerClaw 12-04-2016 08:17 PM

Here's the trailer


snake 12-04-2016 08:39 PM

I feel bad for Brendan Fraiser

TheSkeletonMan939 12-04-2016 08:50 PM

That was the most hilarious **** I've seen all week.

sdp 12-04-2016 09:15 PM

Well that's one way of rebooting the series, I'll give them credit that it's taking its own approach and while it seems like a generic action Tom Cruise movie it should be alright. Unsure how the whole cinematic universe will arise from there but oh well.

Powder 12-04-2016 11:09 PM

Not really a fan of Tom Cruise but that looks pretty cool.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy 12-04-2016 11:17 PM

The multiple eyes visual is pretty great. So that's cool.

sdp 12-04-2016 11:23 PM

really?

I'm not really a fan of Tom Cruise either but I recognize he's a great actor and any movie he's in is usually somewhat entertaining at the very least.

Wildcat 12-05-2016 12:08 AM

I never saw the Fraser Mummy movies but that was a remake/reboot too. This looks similar with a lot of action.

That article just trashes shared universes. I really hate the phrase "product of thier time". All that tells me is they think something is too dumb to ever try or do again...come on. Like nothing now is outrageous fantasy? :roll:

If you can accept either Godzilla or King Kong there's no (legitimate) reason you can't accept they exist in the same world.

That's like believing in Bigfoot but not the Loch ness monster.

Candy Kappa 12-05-2016 04:39 AM

Looks pretty cool, but I'm a bit skeptical about setting it in modern day. Guess it's a nice way to differentiate it from the previous movies like the 1999 remake.

Since it's a shared universe, is it in-canon with I, Frankenstein and Dracula Untold? Or is it yet another retry at a Universal Monster universe?

Krutch 12-05-2016 06:49 AM

Looks nifty to me. I'll check it out.

ProactiveMan 12-05-2016 09:05 AM

That actually looks pretty good. It may just be Tom Cruise's face, but it looks really creepy.

TheSkeletonMan939 12-05-2016 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa (Post 1644300)
Since it's a shared universe, is it in-canon with I, Frankenstein and Dracula Untold? Or is it yet another retry at a Universal Monster universe?

I think Dracula is the first and only film so far in the Monster universe, but hell, maybe even that one has been jettisoned.

*Checks Wikipedia*

LOL okay, so even Dracula Untold, which had a post-credits scene shot just to be a part of the Monsterverse, is no longer part of it. Geez.

And look at the tagline for the Mummy - even THAT is an advertisement for the series at large, not just the film. They're counting their chickens before they hatch and it reeks of the word "cashgrab" to me. I guess even with all that money budgeted for the film, Universal can't afford a little subtlety, huh?

TigerClaw 12-05-2016 09:59 AM

Here's a featurette on The Mummy.


TigerClaw 12-05-2016 12:07 PM

Its been confirmed that Dracula Untold will not be part of the shared Universal Monsters Universe, Its no longer canon, The Mummy is the start of this shared universe.
http://collider.com/the-mummy-univer...ared-universe/

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy 12-05-2016 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TigerClaw (Post 1644344)
Its been confirmed that Dracula Untold will not be part of the shared Universal Monsters Universe, Its no longer canon, The Mummy is the start of this shared universe.
http://collider.com/the-mummy-univer...ared-universe/

Uh huh. Until IT bombs. :trolleye:

Studios and their idiotic shared universes / cinematic universes. Let's face it, except for the original CU (thank you, Marvel), nobody else has pulled it off yet... not even the studios who SHOULD be able to match them (looking at YOU, Fox and DC/WB).

Candy Kappa 12-05-2016 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939 (Post 1644321)
And look at the tagline for the Mummy - even THAT is an advertisement for the series at large, not just the film. They're counting their chickens before they hatch and it reeks of the word "cashgrab" to me. I guess even with all that money budgeted for the film, Universal can't afford a little subtlety, huh?

Makes you wonder what's wrong with just making stand-alone movies with subtle hints and have crossover movies afterwards.

TheSkeletonMan939 12-05-2016 02:27 PM

Well Universal is clearly operating under the idea that audiences will be immediately interested in a film which is part of a larger universe. I guess they think it's the same sort of appeal as the "collect 'em all" aspect of Pokemon, where having the full set is part of the experience. I dunno.

It's the complete wrong way to go about it, though. For a "shared universe" of the scale they're going for, an audience has to be earned, not assumed. I don't think even Marvel Studios, as far as marketing is concerned, had the balls to advertise the universe as a whole until Captain America: The First Avenger. Now of course there were easter eggs and connections in the films themselves, but the marketing was squarely focused on the plot of the one respective movie and didn't venture anything else.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy 12-05-2016 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa (Post 1644356)
Makes you wonder what's wrong with just making stand-alone movies with subtle hints and have crossover movies afterwards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939 (Post 1644361)
Well Universal is clearly operating under the idea that audiences will be immediately interested in a film which is part of a larger universe. I guess they think it's the same sort of appeal as the "collect 'em all" aspect of Pokemon, where having the full set is part of the experience. I dunno.

It's the complete wrong way to go about it, though. For a "shared universe" of the scale they're going for, an audience has to be earned, not assumed. I don't think even Marvel Studios, as far as marketing is concerned, had the balls to advertise the universe as a whole until Captain America: The First Avenger. Now of course there were easter eggs and connections in the films themselves, but the marketing was squarely focused on the plot of the one respective movie and didn't venture anything else.

Exactly. And again, only Marvel has done it with any degree of success so far.

Fox and WB/DC have had mixed results, but they're at least on the board... whereas everybody else who cries "cinematic universe!" are fooling nobody but themselves.

sdp 12-05-2016 02:56 PM

I describe the problems with shared/cinematic universes here which I linked earlier
http://miscrave.com/articles/cinemat...erse-copycats/ As a nerd I always loved shared universes but I do have a problem with the whole "me too" attitude that studios are going for so I'm stuck with two different views, I'm happy we're finally getting more of what I have always enjoyed but at the same time I think they're doing it for the wrong reasons as in they're creating something to make a universe and not split the universe from this one idea.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildcat (Post 1644282)
That article just trashes shared universes. I really hate the phrase "product of thier time". All that tells me is they think something is too dumb to ever try or do again...come on. Like nothing now is outrageous fantasy? :roll:

If you can accept either Godzilla or King Kong there's no (legitimate) reason you can't accept they exist in the same world.

That's like believing in Bigfoot but not the Loch ness monster.

But it's more of a believing in Aliens but not the Chupacabra. They are a product of their time they've been spoofed and parodied so much it's difficult to take them seriously. Godzilla and say Batman are still able to find a way to be frightening.serious but to most these horror icons are just that icons, even Freddy and Jason can't be taken seriously anymore. I would love to see this cinematic universe work but I do find it a bit hard for them to do it., I think the best way to actually do it is to just remake the original stories in an old setting, the whole modern thing really makes it more difficult but let's see where it goes. I also never saw The Mummy reboot of the 00's and actually I've never seen any mummy movies now that I think about it.



Quote:

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy (Post 1644345)
Uh huh. Until IT bombs. :trolleye:

Studios and their idiotic shared universes / cinematic universes. Let's face it, except for the original CU (thank you, Marvel), nobody else has pulled it off yet... not even the studios who SHOULD be able to match them (looking at YOU, Fox and DC/WB).

But Marvel isn't the original Cinematic Universe, it's the Monsters. If anyone has the right to try it it's them. Many studios have pulled off a cinematic universe before Marvel Studios even existed and arguably to a better extent. Sure Marvel made shared universes in movies a hip thing but to say they didn't only exist but weren't popular in a smaller scale before is a lie.

If this bombs I think they won't bother with it again for many years. IIRC there were rumors when the wolfman came out that it would begin a new monsters universe but that didn't plan out either, and then there was Dracula Untold.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.