Advertisement
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

The Mummy (2017)

  • 01-12-2016 3:38pm
    #1
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 54,492 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭ Mr E


    I thought there was a thread but I couldn't find it. Anyway, the trailer for the trailer came out today. Full trailer on Sunday.

    Movie due for release in June 2017.



«134

Comments

  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    Obligatory: boo to trailer-trailers!

    :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,522 ✭✭✭✭ 2smiggy


    first i heard about this film, looks interesting !! with tom cruise and russell crow attached !


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,589 ✭✭✭ Brief_Lives


    Justr had a quick google and this seems to be the first installment of The Universal Monsters series.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Monsters_(2017_film_series)

    The Universal Monsters series is a shared universe of action-adventure/horror films that includes rebooted versions of films from the original series. The films are being developed and distributed by Universal Studios and are currently in various stages of development.

    In October 2013, Roberto Orci spoke to IGN, hinting that both The Mummy and Van Helsing reboots will have a shared universe. New developments were made in July 2014, when Universal announced that they had tapped Alex Kurtzman and Chris Morgan to develop all classic movie monsters which include Frankenstein's monster, Count Dracula, the Wolf Man, Gill-man, the Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein, and the Mummy. In December 2014, Universal hired Jay Basu to write an undisclosed film for the shared universe. Universal's chairman, in a November interview, stated that the new films would be more action-adventure based rather than horror, and would be set in a present-day setting in order to "reimagine and reintroduce them to a contemporary audience." In August 2015, Alex Kurtzman announced the new film series will be a mix of horror and other fictional genres.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,689 ✭✭✭ sky88


    with crowe and cruise involved this definatley peaks my interest. look for to the actual trailer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 56,298 ✭✭✭✭ Agent Coulson




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,199 ✭✭✭✭ StringerBell


    For a start, how Cruise seems to survive a plane crash, or rather die, and come back to life is already bothering me.

    I'll watch it though and expect it to be decent regardless

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 18,779 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Brian?


    For a start, how Cruise seems to survive a plane crash, or rather die, and come back to life is already bothering me.

    I'll watch it though and expect it to be decent regardless

    An ancient Egyptian super natural force is destroying London and that bother you? ;)

    What the world really needs is another comic book universe to milk with endless mediocre films

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    Brian? wrote: »
    An ancient Egyptian super natural force is destroying London and that bother you? ;)

    What the world really needs is another comic book universe to milk with endless mediocre films

    It's not a comic book adaptation. It's the latest iteration of Universals 'monster' franchise.

    As another site phrased it, it looks like Mission Impossible with monsters to me. Not a bad thing mind but the trailers CGI looks pretty shonky


  • Registered Users Posts: 36,637 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    Good to see they included a shot of the cruiser running. wouldn't be a cruise film without it.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 21,838 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Kiith


    He dies, is brought back to life because of the curse/proximity to the mummy, plans to stop the mummy from destroying the planet, falls in love with blondie, night of passion, finds out killing the mummy will result in him dying, does it anyway. Fade to black.

    Or something along those lines :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,019 ✭✭✭ EoinMcLovin


    Kiith wrote: »
    He dies, is brought back to life because of the curse/proximity to the mummy, plans to stop the mummy from destroying the planet, falls in love with blondie, night of passion, finds out killing the mummy will result in him dying, does it anyway. Fade to black.

    Or something along those lines :)

    Was thinking the exact same thing, pity trailers nowadays give away too much plot details as that could have been a good surprise in the movie


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭ Bacchus


    pixelburp wrote: »
    It's not a comic book adaptation. It's the latest iteration of Universals 'monster' franchise.

    As another site phrased it, it looks like Mission Impossible with monsters to me. Not a bad thing mind but the trailers CGI looks pretty shonky

    My thoughts exactly. Mission Impossible: Mummy Protocol.

    Also, while the trailer started out with a spectacular looking plane crash sequence, the rest of it looks absolute pants. Where exactly is the mummy in this? I see a sarcophagus, then there's a plane crash and then the baddie from Suicide Squad turns up and picks up where she left off.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,515 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Sad Professor




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,767 Ben Gadot


    Boutella looks suitably horrifying so it's a positive start.

    Mind you, going by the aesthetic of the trailer I'm giving up on my hope for what this universe should look and feel like.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,677 ✭✭✭ Slydice



    There's potential for a good film in that trailer..

    but also potential for a flop.

    I'm guessing it depends on how much good bits they are not giving away.

    Focusing their marketing on grabbing folks who like a Tom Cruise action film seems like good business sense though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,199 ✭✭✭✭ StringerBell


    Brian? wrote: »
    An ancient Egyptian super natural force is destroying London and that bother you? ;)

    What the world really needs is another comic book universe to milk with endless mediocre films

    I said for a start ;)

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Registered Users Posts: 75,364 ✭✭✭✭ JP Liz V1


    I'm waiting for "show me the mummy" line :p


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭ Arghus


    Found it a bit strange that the last massive hit that Cruise starred in also featured hi-jinks with an aircraft to set it all off. The big deal there was that he actually was commited(mad) enough to hang out the side of the plane for the sake of the stunt, worked a treat in terms of marketing the movie. Surprised the producers for this didn't try this time around to actually crash a plane for real, with Tom inside of it, for the sake of the stunt. It may, hopefully, come out that he spent time in a honest-to-God morgue, lying next to legit cadavers, to film that sequence that we briefly see in the trailers.

    Try to read the following in your best cigar chomping mogul voice -

    "Let me tell ya, Tom was so commited to the role that he wanted us to kill him for real, no kidding! - just to get the morgue shots down. Thanks to those whatchacallem...enhanced Thetan Powers, or something, he holds no fear of death and would probably just spring back to life good as new in a few hours. Tom's a real ticket! Best in the business. We said that we couldn't do it, not because of us not believing him. Hell no! He's a good kid! Of course he'd be back - look how he's resurrected his career for Gawwads sake! - but there'd be the small technicality of us having to, you know, kill him; even if he was dead only for a couple of hours, we'd still have to pay the insurance - which would not only bankrupt the studio, the payout would bring down the larger conglomerate that owns the studio, which in turn would destroy the industry, which would eventually lead to a widening spiral of financial chaos that would engulf the World and eventually destroy us all. To tell ya the truth I didn't quite get it, I understand the picture business, not this whole global financial system business. But I got the gist, ya know? So, with all that in mind, we figured it was best to just have him play dead for a few days shooting. He was pretty dissapointed at first. Kid was pretty down. He was sure it'd get him an Oscar ya know. I mean actual literal Resurrection from the dead - The Academy would love it! Leo ate some grizzly ass and got some frost on his balls - and he got an award! Tom would be a sure bet and we'd have a dynamite picture! But we reasoned with him: Tom, we says, listen, kid, you know we love ya and an Oscar would be great 'an all, but with the potential bankruptcy feeding into the potential Worldwide financial meltdown, yadda, yadda, yadda. Just too many goddamn risks. It couldn't be done. The Academy wouldn't be handing out statues next year if we did it, hell there wouldn't in all likelihood be an Academy, statues or even a next year if we did it. Tom saw what we were saying. We offered to kill Russell Crowe if that made him feel any better. We figured we could cover that one, piece of cake! Hell we could even kill him twice! But, nah, Tom said it was okay - Russell seemed like a swell guy and plus he wanted to work with him. He really liked a picture Russell was in called A Good Year. Hoid of it? Nah, me neither. Even though I'd produced it; I'd neveh hoid of it..."


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,515 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Sad Professor


    In fairness to Cruise, it seems he did parts of that zero-g sequence for real in the "vomit comet". And it was his idea.

    http://collider.com/the-mummy-tom-cruise-vfx/


  • Registered Users Posts: 56,298 ✭✭✭✭ Agent Coulson


    In fairness to Cruise, it seems he did parts of that zero-g sequence for real in the "vomit comet". And it was his idea.

    http://collider.com/the-mummy-tom-cruise-vfx/

    I think the only reason Cruise makes movies these days is to get the studios to pay for a adrenaline junkie lifestyle.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 56,298 ✭✭✭✭ Agent Coulson


    The trailer has been out for a couple of weeks now.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,515 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Sad Professor


    It's the IMAX trailer with missing sound effects. Kinda funny, I guess.


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 54,492 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭ Mr E




    Another good trailer. I think it gives away the whole start of the movie, though...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,767 Ben Gadot


    Still seems very action orientated more than horror to me. Cruise also getting the star treatment given this is meant to be a launchpad for Amunet as a wider part of the UMU.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,645 ✭✭✭ Bacchus


    Looks fairly average to me.... the (villainous) plot for Suicide Squad but with added Cruise effect. They'll probably try to pitch as a return of a horror classic but this looks no more "horror" than the Fraser remakes.

    That trailer gives away more than just the start btw... I'd say pretty much every plot beat is hit in the trailer and anyone with half a brain could piece together the events of the movie with the possible exception of some third act twist.... so spoilers and all that :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭ Venom


    Ben Gadot wrote: »
    Still seems very action orientated more than horror to me. Cruise also getting the star treatment given this is meant to be a launchpad for Amunet as a wider part of the UMU.

    The Brendan Fraizer version from back in the day, was pretty much action over horror focused and was still a cracker of a movie.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,767 Ben Gadot


    Venom wrote: »
    The Brendan Fraizer version from back in the day, was pretty much action over horror focused and was still a cracker of a movie.

    Aye but I want a different sort of beast now for the overall universe. The aesthetic looks no different to what it was for Dracula Untold which was meant to be the start of the universe yet they canned it.


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 54,492 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭ Mr E


    Venom wrote: »
    The Brendan Fraizer version from back in the day, was pretty much action over horror focused and was still a cracker of a movie.

    That's another good point. This version looks devoid of wit. Fraser had a bit of fun with his reluctant hero role, but this looks pretty dry in comparison.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭ Venom


    Ben Gadot wrote: »
    Aye but I want a different sort of beast now for the overall universe. The aesthetic looks no different to what it was for Dracula Untold which was meant to be the start of the universe yet they canned it.

    Sod all this linked/overall universe crap, I just want to see good movies. Just because the Marvel have done a good job on their shared universe film wise, doesn't mean every other studio has to follow the same script.
    Mr E wrote: »
    That's another good point. This version looks devoid of wit. Fraser had a bit of fun with his reluctant hero role, but this looks pretty dry in comparison.

    The trailer for the 1999 film



    does not give away how much humor and wit it actually had either! Just saying.


Advertisement