Completely Inconsequential Hot-Takes

[Bohandas]

I hate the Undead narrator trope.

You know, when a story is being told in the first person, as if the protagonist is sitting there telling you the story themselves, but the story ends with their death?

Nothing takes me out of an otherwise good ghost story faster than "wait, if the monster got you then how are you here to tell me this story?"

What do you think of stories like The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym that do the opposite? The narrator survives the adventure and then abruptly dies in the middle of recounting it. (That is true btw, that is really how that novel ends.)

[Ionathus]

I'm also watching on my phone. And I'm sick of seeing videos designed to cater to people who are holding their phones wrong

Not to be a little twerp about it but can you go ahead and define "wrong" in this context for me?

[Rater202]

What do you think of stories like The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym that do the opposite? The narrator survives the adventure and then abruptly dies in the middle of recounting it. (That is true btw, that is really how that novel ends.)

Well, that's not an inherent plothole.

[Peelee]

Well, that's not an inherent plothole.

Neither is "the narrator died". Who in-universe is the narrator talking to? Nobody. The voice-over is breaking the fourth wall and talking directly to the audience. Some movies, like Shane Black's magnum opus Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, openly acknowledge this. But even for the ones that don't, it's still what they're doing. The dead character narrator isnt telling the story to one of the characters in the movie. They're telling it to you, the viewer.

[Bohandas]

Neither is "the narrator died". Who in-universe is the narrator talking to? Nobody. The voice-over is breaking the fourth wall and talking directly to the audience. Some movies, like Shane Black's magnum opus Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, openly acknowledge this. But even for the ones that don't, it's still what they're doing. The dead character narrator isnt telling the story to one of the characters in the movie. They're telling it to you, the viewer.

It can be an issue in the epistolary and found footage genres. Realistically he wouldn't bother to write "Aaargh!" he's just say it. And who is running the camera at the end of some of these found footage movies?

[Rater202]

Neither is "the narrator died". Who in-universe is the narrator talking to? Nobody. The voice-over is breaking the fourth wall and talking directly to the audience. Some movies, like Shane Black's magnum opus Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, openly acknowledge this. But even for the ones that don't, it's still what they're doing. The dead character narrator isnt telling the story to one of the characters in the movie. They're telling it to you, the viewer.

If you'll note, I was mentioning specifically stories that are framed as if the narrator and the person telling you the story are one and the same.

Like a campfire story.

Or like... Something someone posted on Reddit.

[Peelee]

It can be an issue in the epistolary and found footage genres. Realistically he wouldn't bother to write "Aaargh!" he's just say it. And who is running the camera at the end of some of these found footage movies?

Haven't seen those, i figured they resolved themselves given the genre? If not, then yeah, I'd call it poorly made.

If you'll note, I was mentioning specifically stories that are framed as if the narrator and the person telling you the story are one and the same.

Like a campfire story.

Or like... Something someone posted on Reddit.

Im aware. That's why I pulled out KKBB as an example, because in that one, the narrator openly comments on how he is telling a story to the movie audience, as all characters are doing in this style. Again, who do you think the narrator is talking to, if not yku, the viewer? That's why it's breaking the fourth wall, Bob the character whi has been narrating the whole time dies in the film and keeps narrating because Bob was narrating to you, Rater, the person watching the movie, and not to Alice the other character in the movie.

[Fyraltari]

While we're talkig about dying narrators... One of Lovecraft narrators is explicitly writing the story you're reading down. It ends with him writing down that the monster is grappling him and about to eat him. Dude just didn't run or anything, he just kept on writing.

[Peelee]

While we're talkig about dying narrators... One of Lovecraft narrators is explicitly writing the story you're reading down. It ends with him writing down that the monster is grappling him and about to eat him. Dude just didn't run or anything, he just kept on writing.

That's pretty funny, I gotta say.

[Bohandas]

Not to be a little twerp about it but can you go ahead and define "wrong" in this context for me?

portrait mode

[sktarq]

Not to be a little twerp about it but can you go ahead and define "wrong" in this context for me?

I'm going to assume "On my blackberry" isn't helpful to you.

little guy is still truckin' even if Instagram hates its screen size.

[gomipile]

I'm going to assume "On my blackberry" isn't helpful to you.

little guy is still truckin' even if Instagram hates its screen size.

Funny, my first two associations for blackberry are no longer the phones anymore. I guess it really is the '20s now.

Fwiw, my first association is Louis Rossman's black cat. Second is actual blackberries and things flavored with them.

[Peelee]

The 1999 Egyptian-themed Brendan Fraser action-adventure film would have been more appropriately named "The Zombie".

[Fyraltari]

The 1999 Egyptian-themed Brendan Fraser action-adventure film would have been more appropriately named "The Zombie".

I believ you mean "the Revenant".

[LaZodiac]

The 1999 Egyptian-themed Brendan Fraser action-adventure film would have been more appropriately named "The Zombie".

Technically the antagonist is simply an Egyptian Lich, which I think mummy is appropriate for.

[Peelee]

Technically the antagonist is simply an Egyptian Lich, which I think mummy is appropriate for.

Except mummies are, by definition, mummified, while Imhotep was very notably not.

Revanant and Lich both seem to fit as well as Zombie.

[Rater202]

Except mummies are, by definition, mummified, while Imhotep was very notably not.

Revanant and Lich both seem to fit as well as Zombie.

He was subjected to the process of mummification.

The people doing it intentionally did a ****ty job and then licked his body in a container full of flesh-eating beetles, but he still underwent the process so he does fall under one definition of mummy.

[Peelee]

He was subjected to the process of mummification.

He was not. Mummification is a process done after death to preserve corpses. He was tossed, bound, into a sarcophagus while alive and covered with scarabs. This is mummification done poorly in the same sense that the electric chair is crucifixion done poorly.

[Fyraltari]

Except mummies are, by definition, mummified, while Imhotep was very notably not.

Revanant and Lich both seem to fit as well as Zombie.

Except that Zombies are, by definition, unintelligent undead often under the control of another being.

See how pointless that nitpicking is?

Maybe we could just let the movie be, no?

[Rater202]

He was not. Mummification is a process done after death to preserve corpses. He was tossed, bound, into a sarcophagus while alive and covered with scarabs. This is mummification done poorly in the same sense that the electric chair is crucifixion done poorly.

I distinctly recall the movie stating that Imhotep and his followers were subjected to the (deliberately mishandled) process of mummification while still alive as punishment for their crimes with the only difference between Imhotep and his followers being that Imhotep was cursed with undying immortality first so he'd live through the process and experiance an eternity of agony once bound.

Admittedly, there is the plothole of why he needed the ressurection spell to move if he never died in the first place if he was still technically alive as a decayed corpse, but I suppose it's possible that the spell merely gave him the ability to move in that state.

[Peelee]

Except that Zombies are, by definition, unintelligent undead often under the control of another being.

See how pointless that nitpicking is?

Maybe we could just let the movie be, no?

Where's that definition from? I'm readily willing to accept other titles (and have already agreed that other titles fit well) it you can back up your claim.

[LaZodiac]

So Rater is right that he's a mummy (desiccated corpse that underwent mummification due to drying and treatment of the body), Peelee is right that he was not mummified alive- part of the mummification process is stirring the brain up into a goo and relieving it from the body. You don't GET officially "made into a mummy" alive.

Ultimately this is an argument of semantics. Mummification can happen without human intent in like, bogs and ****. Happens all the time. He was mummified- by nature, not by people.

[Rater202]

Where's that definition from? I'm readily willing to accept other titles (and have already agreed that other titles fit well) it you can back up your claim.

Stepping lightly? the original definition of zombie was "someone placed into a near-death state and then revived, or else killed and resurrected, as part of the process of being enslaved by an evil sorcerer."

At some point the term became associated with the ghouls from Romero's the Living Dead franchise, which consisted of mindless or nearly mindless beings compelled by a craving for living flesh, and from there launched a genre.

The term "revenant" tends to be used, almost exclusively, to refer to undead beings who retain their own minds or wills specifically to distinguish them between and zombies.

Even when intelligent zombies do appear, there tend to be allusions to the more common pop-cultural implications such as feral zombies also existing or avoiding going into such a state being why they cannibalize others.

honestly, if you think that "Mummy" doesn't fit for this... Honestly, there's a better argument for calling him a vampire. He spends a good chunk of the movie after being revived hunting down people in order to harvest the life and fluids from their body in order to regenerate himself back to his physical prime

[Peelee]

So a big part of why i put it in here and not Random Banter was because i figured it was pretty light-hearted, inconsequential - nothing actually changes the content of the movie by pointing out Imhotep wasn't actually mummified but is still called a mummy. But the responses led to a deep dive that interestingly answered both the mummification issue and also a separate issue raised, which is neat. So:

I distinctly recall the movie stating that Imhotep and his followers were subjected to the (deliberately mishandled) process of mummification while still alive as punishment for their crimes with the only difference between Imhotep and his followers being that Imhotep was cursed with undying immortality first so he'd live through the process and experiance an eternity of agony once bound.

Admittedly, there is the plothole of why he needed the ressurection spell to move if he never died in the first place if he was still technically alive as a decayed corpse, but I suppose it's possible that the spell merely gave him the ability to move in that state.

Apparently in the original script, and also in the novel, it's noted that the ritual is not a mishandled mummification but rather a different, very specific ritual. The scarabs aren't intended as torture in themselves but are an essential part of the ritual - the scarabs eat Imhotep's flesh, and Imhotep, eventually driven to necessity, eats the scarabs, which eat Imhotep who eats the scarabs and so on and so on for years upon years in a dark mockery of the cycle of life that was an important aspect of making him immortal so that he would suffer forever.

And there seems to be a lot more to his backstory and also stuff on the plagues that were also supposed to be included, that were cut for pacing like the ritual info was. But yeah, in the original context he is some form of unique undead/immortal with no direct correlation to any of the popular monsters.

Makes for a less catchy title, though.

[Fyraltari]

Where's that definition from? I'm readily willing to accept other titles (and have already agreed that other titles fit well) it you can back up your claim.

Well the word zombi is originally from Haitian folklore (staying out of religion here) and describes an individual murdered by a sorcerer in a ritual that makes them come back as an undead beholden to the sorcerer's commands (or in some tales, an individual bewitched into believing he was dead and beholden to the sorcerer). I don't really know much about Haitian culture so if someone wants to correct me, I'll appreciate (especially since, you know, French...)
At some point the concept of zombie became tied up in the zombie movie where zombies are hordes of unthinking living corpses hunting the living to devour them. Fantasy works then started to use a combination of the two where zombies are dead creature raised by a necromancer and bound to their service and usually distinguished from other, independent undead, such as the ghost, vampire or aforementioned lich.

Makes for a less catchy title, though.

Also, it's a remake, gotta keep the title when you remake a movie.

[Ionathus]

Didn't Imhotep need to recover his organs? I thought I recalled that he was missing all them classic canopic-jar-mummy-organs (plus tongue and eyes) and had to keep stealing them from the living people. But it's been awhile since I saw the movie, maybe it was just more generic "life force/fluids/living tissue"...

[sktarq]

So a big part of why i put it in here and not Random Banter was because i figured it was pretty light-hearted, inconsequential - nothing actually changes the content of the movie by pointing out Imhotep wasn't actually mummified but is still called a mummy. But the responses led to a deep dive that interestingly answered both the mummification issue and also a separate issue raised, which is neat. So:

Makes for a less catchy title, though.

meh...that gets very....pedantic and open to other questions. Firstly what is meant by "mummy" is it that he was dried out to enhance preservation? or was it the series of rituals performed over/on him (in world those having magical powers-and and does that magic positive change trump the definition in world vs ours)?
Also what was in his canoptic jars? It would not have been his organs if he mummified alive as we normally would think it...unless he had is organs ripped out was kept alive via the spell and then wrapped up...which may take up beyond light hearted or PG13 territory.

[Rater202]

Didn't Imhotep need to recover his organs? I thought I recalled that he was missing all them classic canopic-jar-mummy-organs (plus tongue and eyes) and had to keep stealing them from the living people. But it's been awhile since I saw the movie, maybe it was just more generic "life force/fluids/living tissue"...

I thought that too but apparently the Canopic Jars in the cursed chest belonged to the pharaoh he assassinated.

He did replace his tongue—the part we know that was removed—with one of the people cursed to be his first victim but as far as I can tell the rest of his regeneration was just from sucking the life out of people.

[Peelee]

meh...that gets very....pedantic and open to other questions. Firstly what is meant by "mummy" is it that he was dried out to enhance preservation?

Very notably was not dried out either. Several characters note this.

[sktarq]

Very notably was not dried out either. Several characters note this.

exactly. which is what brings the question of the definition of mummy into question. Is it the drying process that makes the definition? In that case what about cases that occur under water like in bogs? Or is the definition of mummy tied to the rituals of the Egyptian priests? In which case natural mummies wouldn't count. And in a world where those rituals have obvious and powerful effects would that cause a difference in what definition to use vs our world and how we select a definition? I would say in the world of "The Mummy" a mummy would be defined by the later not the former.