The Mummy reboot trailer

[DoctorFaust]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjHgzkQM2Sg

I'm not really sure what to think of this. On one hand, it has Russel Crowe and Tom Cruise in it, so it should be an entertaining action movie at the very least, but on the other, the trailer makes it look like a supernatural Mission Impossible. Which isn't to say that's a bad thing, just...not entirely what I was hoping for, I guess.

[danzibr]

When you said Russell Crowe, I was totally expecting him to be the mummy.

Anyway... I'll probably watch it at some point. Oh, and Tom Cruise is still looking rather young.

[HandofShadows]

Oh, and Tom Cruise is still looking rather young.

One of the movies greatests special effects? :smallamused::smallwink:

[Jan Mattys]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjHgzkQM2Sg

I'm not really sure what to think of this. On one hand, it has Russel Crowe and Tom Cruise in it, so it should be an entertaining action movie at the very least, but on the other, the trailer makes it look like a supernatural Mission Impossible. Which isn't to say that's a bad thing, just...not entirely what I was hoping for, I guess.

I am probably the only one to think this, but... I honestly didn't feel the need of a reboot of a classic horror concept. Quite a few classics have been butchered, but The Mummy with Brendan Frasier was a little gem of a movie (the sequel, not so much), and a very enjoyable one.

It had a great mix of action and fun, before Marvel made it mainstream :D

[Rogar Demonblud]

It needs a reboot because they're turning their whole "Classic Horror Movie Monster" rights into a shared universe. So, again, someone's aping Marvel.

[Hopeless]

So did he actually die in that plane crash or was that bit about awakening in the morgue just a really bad dream for him?

[Traab]

So did he actually die in that plane crash or was that bit about awakening in the morgue just a really bad dream for him?

Or its all a part of the mystery and we learn he is actually possessed by evil tutenkamen or whoever, which is why he is alive, and clearly unharmed from a plane crash and yet in the morgue.

[random11]

Does it even count as a reboot?

It's not connected to the Brendan Fraser movie, and it's WAY too far from the old 1932 to have any similarity.

[Eldan]

Is it me or does nothing in that trailer look very Egyptian in aesthetics? What are they going for here?

[JoshL]

Does it even count as a reboot?

It's not connected to the Brendan Fraser movie, and it's WAY too far from the old 1932 to have any similarity.

I'd argue that it's a good reboot because of that. I mean, if you're just going to remake an old film, why even bother? But if you're going to do something different with the concept, like they did with the Fraser movies, that is at least worth doing, whether it ends up being good or bad. Just my perspective anyway.

I also assume "reboot" rather than "remake" implies they're planning sequels from the get go, but these days people say one when they mean the other. Appropriate in this case though.

[BWR]

I'm torn. On the one hand I don't like Tom Cruise, on the other he is a decent actor and is in a surprising number of good movies. This looks like it could be entertaining, and I'm glad it doesn't look like it's trying to do the other Mummy movies over again.

[Kitten Champion]

It needs a reboot because they're turning their whole "Classic Horror Movie Monster" rights into a shared universe. So, again, someone's aping Marvel.

Still? The Dracula Untold movie didn't lose money apparently, but it was hardly a rousing beginning to a profitable meta-franchise. I only remembered it was a thing because I read your post, and I actually saw it. Also, how does that even work? I'm pretty certain they're all quintessential public domain characters, what's to stop anyone else from rolling up with a mummy movie of their own? One with blackjack and hookers?

Anyways, this isn't a reboot. This is just a movie about a mummy. The core identity of Fraser's Mummy series was its adapting the classic adventure serial pastiche for the 2000's and in a manner which frankly felt much more comfortable with itself than Crystal Skull did.

Which was also a real problem with the sequels, they - the studio I guess - decided it was about mummies rather than Fraser's character going on supernatural-laden action adventures in the 20's and that creatively shackled them when they could probably have sold Fraser's character - Rick-something-or-rather - as the draw for their franchise. So we got more fantasy Egypt mythos and several movies surrounding the Scorpion King - because that needed to happen - while The Mummy sequels were more of the same but with less talent behind it each time.

I'd be more interested in this The Mummy if they Xover with Mission Impossible. Have the IMF fight Werewolves and Frankensteins!

[Bhu]

Universal has now confirmed Dracula Untold is not going to be part of the shared monster universe

[DoctorFaust]

Does it even count as a reboot?

It's not connected to the Brendan Fraser movie, and it's WAY too far from the old 1932 to have any similarity.

No idea. I'm just reporting what Wikipedia tells me like a good little sheep. :smalltongue: In seriousness, though, my basic understanding after reading a couple of articles on the subject is that it's taking the concept and the franchise and going somewhere different with them. Which is pretty much what I would characterise as a reboot. If they were just taking the Brendan Frasier movies and sticking Tom Cruise into the leading man role, that's more what I would consider a remake.

And after watching the trailer a few more times to try and get a handle on my opinion of it, it seems to me like there's a very odd tonal change about halfway through. Did anyone else get that feeling?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Or its all a part of the mystery and we learn he is actually possessed by evil tutenkamen or whoever, which is why he is alive, and clearly unharmed from a plane crash and yet in the morgue.

We already know the mummy is played by Sofia Boutelle, in tight bandages that expose a lot of skin.

Yes, you read that right. The mummy is a sexy undead.

[Traab]

We already know the mummy is played by Sofia Boutelle, in tight bandages that expose a lot of skin.

Yes, you read that right. The mummy is a sexy undead.



Ah, but that doesnt mean she is the only one. Think anaksunamun from the brendan fraiser films. Imhotep was trying to bring her back to life, maybe this sexy mummy lady wants to bring her man back and is using tom cruise as a host vessel? (Not a bad option really)

[khadgar567]

are we talking about same movie were the third film has dragon emperor mummy or I make a wrong turn from Albuquerque

both movies are sufficently distinct for them self the old one with anaksunamun is good and one of my favorites but tom cruise looks like any moment but mission briefing specks and we have the mission impossible paranormal branch movie

[Quild]

I am probably the only one to think this, but... I honestly didn't feel the need of a reboot of a classic horror concept. Quite a few classics have been butchered, but The Mummy with Brendan Frasier was a little gem of a movie (the sequel, not so much), and a very enjoyable one.

It had a great mix of action and fun, before Marvel made it mainstream :D
The Mummy from 1999 is a movie I always loved and watch sometimes. I always quote Rick as an answer when someone tells me "patience is a virtue" (in french though) and was gladly surprised when my girlfriend figured it out the first time she heard me do that (also because it helped changed subject).

The first sequel wasn't that bad. Rick still was the hero, Evelyn was still smart, Alex was quite fun and worked well either with the bad guys or with Jonathan. Also Imhotep and Mathayus were both charismatic.
The big issue was... The plot. But people seems not to care that much about plot.


The third movie however, was terrible. Rick and Evelyn just were thrown in the comical role with Jonathan and that was bad. Alex wasn't that charismatic and neither was the mummy. And the plot was lame.


Now this, well... I really liked the early 20th century touch of The Mummy and the fact that it was mostly in the middle of the desert (except parts in Cairo that is). Now, modern times... I'm afraid of the whole "let's nuke it with copters" part. I like Tom Cruise in a lot of roles, but I'm not sure he fits here.

[Corvus]

It looks a bit too much actiony-heroey to me. The previous reboot was gloriously campy and it knew it - which was what made it so enjoyable. This one looks like it might be takin itself super-serious. Plus it has Tom Cruise in it.

As mentioned, it is meant to be the first in a series of Universal Monster movies, including Frankenstein's Monster, Dracula, the Wolf-Man, The Invisible Man (played by Johnny Depp) and others, with cross-overs.

Oh, and Russel Crowe is playing Dr Jekyll.

[Legato Endless]

I'm not filled with confidence knowing the director here is the writer of the Transformers films. The double irises look more goofy than frightening.


Universal has now confirmed Dracula Untold is not going to be part of the shared monster universe

If this tanks, will it also be ignored? Keep moving on until they flip one of these into a successful starting point? Or are we going all in DC style?

[khadgar567]

I'm not filled with confidence knowing the director here is the writer of the Transformers films. The double irises look more goofy than frightening.



If this tanks, will it also be ignored? Keep moving on until they flip one of these into a successful starting point? Or are we going all in DC style?
dc universe has prety good characters with enough deeped. okay you cant change whole universe fluff in an instant but you have enough empty canvas to even make ben tennyson a justice league member what is his powers alien psychology acting as base for homo magi stuff, omnitrix can me used nearly same as green lantern ring while in marvel its impossible to make him with outh going mary sue or broke him completely.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

It looks a bit too much actiony-heroey to me. The previous reboot was gloriously campy and it knew it - which was what made it so enjoyable. This one looks like it might be takin itself super-serious.

I agree on all points. This film seems to be going for the grey n' gritty direction which is just weird when one considers the success the MCU is seeing with a more idealistic, colourful approach.

[Blackhawk748]

Wait...this is a reboot? I just thought it was a movie that shared the name.

Also she doesnt look Egyptian, she looks almost Aztec.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I believe Ms Boutelle is actually Algerian. Which is at least a little better than the first female Mummy, who was stereotypical Hollywood Blonde. If you don't know of what I speak, I'm not going to corrupt you with something eye-gougingly bad.

[BWR]

I believe he was referring to the costumes and props, not the actress.

[khadgar567]

I believe Ms Boutelle is actually Algerian. Which is at least a little better than the first female Mummy, who was stereotypical Hollywood Blonde. If you don't know of what I speak, I'm not going to corrupt you with something eye-gougingly bad.
as far as i know which is not much anck-su-namun is black haired the whole resurrect eve aka thing happened at the end of second movie and for the first one she is in undead state whole time.

[Blackhawk748]

I believe Ms Boutelle is actually Algerian. Which is at least a little better than the first female Mummy, who was stereotypical Hollywood Blonde. If you don't know of what I speak, I'm not going to corrupt you with something eye-gougingly bad.

I meant the aesthetics not the actress.


I believe he was referring to the costumes and props, not the actress.

Ya, this.

Also i thought they may have been rebooting this The Mummy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mummy_(1999_film))

[khadgar567]

I meant the aesthetics not the actress.



Ya, this.

Also i thought they may have been rebooting this The Mummy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mummy_(1999_film))
now this is good news aka this mummy is completely different then we all love.

[Callos_DeTerran]

I agree on all points. This film seems to be going for the grey n' gritty direction which is just weird when one considers the success the MCU is seeing with a more idealistic, colourful approach.

Yeah, but the idealistic, colorful approach works quite well with superheroes. Heck, the grey n' gritty only works with comic book characters with certain heroes and villains which is part of why DCU is struggling.

This is not about superheroes though and they could make it work cause monster movies kind of lend themselves to grey n' gritty.

...Sad that Dracula Untold has been un-named though, wasn't a great movie but it was promising and had Charles Dance as evil-vampire-Nick-Fury creating Monster/vengers to take on Satan(maybe).

[Blackhawk748]

...Sad that Dracula Untold has been un-named though, wasn't a great movie but it was promising and had Charles Dance as evil-vampire-Nick-Fury creating Monster/vengers to take on Satan(maybe).

I would totally watch that movie.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Is it me or does nothing in that trailer look very Egyptian in aesthetics? What are they going for here?

Looks like generic 90s horror design aesthetics.


We already know the mummy is played by Sofia Boutelle, in tight bandages that expose a lot of skin.

Yes, you read that right. The mummy is a sexy undead.

The original 19th century re-animated Mummy stories were love stories involving sexy mummies.

Then again the original Vampire stories (pre-Dracula and including most of the actual Vampires the Bram Stoker novel who aren't title characters) usually had sexy vampires but people still complain about that as though Anne Rice invented it (Anne Rice also revived the sexy Mummy at one point).

The undead are generally young and beautiful in pre 19th century stories because the tragic nature of their death tended to be the reason why they didn't rest quietly and dead old and ugly people just aren't that tragic.

[Avilan the Grey]

I was marginally interested in this until the trailer, mainly because the aesthetics just didn't do it for me. It feels "Horrow Movie Gothic". I am fine with the "sexy mummy" (partly because it HAS an old tradition, and partly because I loathe anything zombie-related) but this just feels... wrong. As in "Yawn" wrong, not "sick and twisted" wrong.

Of course I was wrong about Ghostbusters (2016) (turns out I rather like it, enough to buy the Blu-Ray) and to a lesser degree wrong on Suicide Quad (Still don't like the tats and teeth of Joker). So what do I know. (I must say I have not really paid attention to anything Cruise have been in since the Opera incident).

[dps]

No idea. I'm just reporting what Wikipedia tells me like a good little sheep. :smalltongue: In seriousness, though, my basic understanding after reading a couple of articles on the subject is that it's taking the concept and the franchise and going somewhere different with them. Which is pretty much what I would characterise as a reboot. If they were just taking the Brendan Frasier movies and sticking Tom Cruise into the leading man role, that's more what I would consider a remake.


My definitions would be:

If a movie is a continuation of the narrative of a previous film in some way and the events of the previous film are still considered to have "happened" in-story, that's a sequel. The roles may have been recast, or there may be an entirely different set of characters. The Brendan Frasier Mummy films are a good example--both The Mummy Returns (2001) and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008) are sequels to The Mummy (1999). They would still be sequels if Frasier had been replaced as Rick by, say, Brad Pitt in the 2nd and 3rd films.

If a movie retells the events of a previous movie, that's a remake. Example: both this year's Ben-Hur and the 1959 Charlton Heston version are remakes of the 1925 silent movie. A remake may stay very close to the original, or stray far, far away.

If a remake is intended to be the first film in a series or franchise, that's a reboot. Example: Batman Begins is a reboot of the franchise started with the 1989 Micheal Keaton film.

A re-imagining is film that is a remake or reboot, but the director is being pretentious about it. :smallbiggrin:

With that out of the way, I don't know what to think about the new Mummy film. Could be good, could be bad. The trailer seems to stress the special effects; if the film is mostly about the FX, that's probably a bad thing. OTOH, just because the trailer focuses on that doesn't mean that it's the focus of the film itself--IIRC, the trailers for the 1999 version also focused on the effects, but while the effects were pretty good, they weren't what the movie was about, either.