The Mummy (2017)

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAWo9_V2qOg

pixelburp

Obligatory: boo to trailer-trailers!

2smiggy

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

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.

sky88

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

Agent Coulson

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

Brian?

StringerBell wrote: »

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

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

ohnonotgmail

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

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

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

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.

Sad Professor

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.

Slydice

Agent Coulson wrote: »

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.

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

JP Liz V1

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

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..."

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/

Agent Coulson

Sad Professor wrote: »

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.

Skerries

Leaked trailer for the new Mummy film starring Tom Cruise

https://cdn-e1.streamable.com/video/mp4/nbivu.mp4?token=1483471955_6769ebd4881a514667b90c769e1ef7bd6d11e6e6


mirrors in case it gets taken down

https://vid.me/twfI

https://cdn-e1.streamable.com/video/mp4/fodte.mp4?token=1483471849_8dfe90a4febe05b7587d08411b375e13795f82ae

Agent Coulson

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

Sad Professor

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

Mr E

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sad Professor

I think it looks great. I dig the Ghost Protocol-esque aesthetic, and what looks like set pieces lifted from the Uncharted games. Oh and Sofia Boutella!

I keep meaning to re-vist the Fraser films. The tongue-in-cheek b-movie thing didn't work for me at the time.

pixelburp

Honestly, caveats about the nature of trailers aside, that looked utterly cookie-cutter. Action set-pieces, mythical filler & the studio-mandated urban destruction. Oh no she's destroying London :rolleyes:

Knowing of Universal's desire to have some sort of 'monster universe' series just makes the thing look terribly cynical.

Only surprise was Jake Johnson appearing in the trailer; so now I'm stuck thinking Nick Miller has somehow wandered into a thriller. Might be good research for his next Peperwood Chronicles novel

RockSalto

Looks a bit generic.

I'd have preferred a more understated 'The Mummy' and an actual horror movie.

Looks like we're going to be treated to yet another sub-par wolfman/werewolf movie.

Brief_Lives

ohnonotgmail

Looks very cookie cutter but cruise is always good value.

Agent Coulson

Pretty much the whole movie there in two minutes.

Ben Gadot

Doesn't look like there's going to be much to Boutella's Mummy and will simply be all evil. I really hope the rumours aren't true of BIG SPOILER BE WARNED

the curse passing to Cruise's character who takes it forward as the Mummy in the UMU.

Agent Coulson

The final trailer

Ben Gadot

Fairly major giveaway in that trailer in regards to Cruise's character.

I really hope Sofia Boutella is not done after this film.

pixelburp

Initial reviews coming in seem mixed at best, scathing at worst; star name notwithstanding this always seemed like something that risked severe audience apathy.

In other news, Universal are also apparently adding Quesemodo and the Phantom of the Opera to their roster for 'the dark univerese'. But considering this is their second attempt to launch the universe after Dracula Untold, I wouldn't hold my breath we'll see then onscreen.

Ben Gadot

My expectations have been low throughout the production with Kurtzman proving with every interview that at best he's out of his depth, and at worst ignorant of what makes these classic characters work.

I'll be seeing it regardless but I genuinely fear for this movie going up against WW this weekend. The only positive is that Universal seem fairly committed to ploughing on given the cast announcements. What I mean by positive is that this is a universe I really want to see....only you know...Kurtzman.

Hande hoche!

It's an interesting one to look at its box office. In the US, both Baywatch and the latest Pirates film under performed. Which was much to the benefit of Wonder woman. Unsure as to how it will fare, all in all.

El Duda

As mentioned above, reviews for this new Mummy film are in and they are no good...

"The film might have been silly enough to be enjoyably camp. Instead it's a witless omnium gatherum of mongrel sources and clichés."

"The movie is a pain in the sarcophagus. I fear that it will anger the gods."

"How meh is The Mummy? Let me count the ways. For all the digital desperation from overworked computers, this Tom Cruise reboot lands onscreen with a resounding thud. Epic fail."

"Make it stop, Mummy! I'm not scared, Mummy! I don't want whatever this thinks itself to be."

"Cruise runs and shouts his way through set pieces, while others mumble mythological explanations, and Ahmanet simply stands around showing off her hieroglyph tattoos."


It angers me that all these big hollywood studios are so transparently desperate to get a 'cinematic universe' going. The big problem they're all making is that they should focus all their efforts on making the first film good. Instead they just piss around setting up future films, shoehorning in characters that 'link' to the new 'dark universe'. It's all getting very pathetic.

Marvel actually bothered to make good, or at least coherent first installments for all their major characters.

Slydice

Anyone else see the reviews and think of the company name behind the film them and so come up with..
Wow, this film is being _UNIVERSALLY_ panned!

No?

Right so..

pixelburp

Slydice wrote: »

Anyone else see the reviews and think of the company name behind the film them and so come up with..
Wow, this film is being _UNIVERSALLY_ panned!

No?

Right so..

I'm sure people have been banned for less.

...


...

Oafley Jones

You have to wonder how Cruise feels about the current state of his career.

It really feels like he's slumming taking this on. Congrats Tom you're the new Brendan Fraser. You've got to think that in this stage of his career he'd be heading towards more Oscar bait roles, instead he's pushing out MIs and sequels to movies that were less than stellar performers (Die again tomorrow, JR). Top Gun 2 talk seems to be the more of a major talking point for interviews. The trailer for American Made seems sort of pedestrian, but admittedly interesting.

He doesn't strike me as the type of individual that wallows in self doubt, but does he regret breaking up with Paula Wagner

Bacchus

Oafley Jones wrote: »

You have to wonder how Cruise feels about the current state of his career.

It really feels like he's slumming taking this on. Congrats Tom you're the new Brendan Fraser. You've got to think that in this stage of his career he'd be heading towards more Oscar bate roles, instead he's pushing out MIs and sequels to movies that were less than stellar performers (Die again tomorrow, JR). Top Gun 2 talk seems to be the more of a major talking point for interviews. The trailer for American Made seems sort of pedestrian, but admittedly interesting.

He doesn't strike me as the type of individual that wallows in self doubt, but does he regret breaking up with Paula Wagner

I kinda figure it's a bit of an ego thing. He always comes across as being all about Tom Cruise and his last 10-15 years of movies have become more and more about him doing crazy stunts and action. He has been one of the top action stars for a while now (helped on by the MI series and a few Sci-Fi/action flicks) and I'd say he's trying desperately (in his 50s) to fight the passage of time and stay on top. Top Gun 2 may surprise but I think it'll be the moment where the Tom Cruise train runs out of steam. The Mummy looks to be the first stumble on the way down but it won't be the end of him as an action movie draw. Once the demise does begin, he can either carry on and do a De Niro or actually try and find good movies that don't involve him hamming it up or jumping off buildings.

copeyhagen

Oafley Jones wrote: »

You have to wonder how Cruise feels about the current state of his career.

It really feels like he's slumming taking this on. Congrats Tom you're the new Brendan Fraser. You've got to think that in this stage of his career he'd be heading towards more Oscar bate roles, instead he's pushing out MIs and sequels to movies that were less than stellar performers (Die again tomorrow, JR). Top Gun 2 talk seems to be the more of a major talking point for interviews. The trailer for American Made seems sort of pedestrian, but admittedly interesting.

He doesn't strike me as the type of individual that wallows in self doubt, but does he regret breaking up with Paula Wagner

one word, scientology. no chance of getting an Oscar, or Oscar role with that joke of a fairytale controlling him.

conorhal

pixelburp wrote: »

Initial reviews coming in seem mixed at best, scathing at worst; star name notwithstanding this always seemed like something that risked severe audience apathy.

In other news, Universal are also apparently adding Quesemodo and the Phantom of the Opera to their roster for 'the dark univerese'. But considering this is their second attempt to launch the universe after Dracula Untold, I wouldn't hold my breath we'll see then onscreen.

'Cinematic universes', the 'effin bane of modern cinema.
It's hard enough to just tell a good story without loading a script with the baggage of 'universe building' which often includes future sequel setups, intoducing superfluous future characters and shoe horning it all into a 'five picture multi character story arc'.
It's feckin' exhausting and every film this kind of movie making produces tends to feels like a bloated two hour trailer for soem coming 'event movie'.

Oafley Jones

Bacchus wrote: »

I kinda figure it's a bit of an ego thing. He always comes across as being all about Tom Cruise and his last 10-15 years of movies have become more and more about him doing crazy stunts and action. He has been one of the top action stars for a while now (helped on by the MI series and a few Sci-Fi/action flicks) and I'd say he's trying desperately (in his 50s) to fight the passage of time and stay on top. Top Gun 2 may surprise but I think it'll be the moment where the Tom Cruise train runs out of steam. The Mummy looks to be the first stumble on the way down but it won't be the end of him as an action movie draw. Once the demise does begin, he can either carry on and do a De Niro or actually try and find good movies that don't involve him hamming it up or jumping off buildings.

He has recovered before e.g. Knight and Day. I remember being surprised how a Cruise movie could open so quietly and without the usual fanfare. Age is really playing against him now. I was struck by how old he looked in MI5. He kinda seemed ageless before that. I think there's a certain desperation from old guys (not acknowledging themselves as old guys) doing action that puts an audience off. That's why I'm surprised he's not getting heavy with the drama. Who knows, maybe he needs the action cheques for his church?