My thoughts on why 'the Mummy' failed to launch Dark Universe

[Peyton Westlake]

I think based on how the Dark Universe premiered here, there is a chance they hit the panic button already.
I hate to say this, and i don't mean to offend anyone, especially the female fans out there but...I think having the Mummy as a woman kind of hurt its chances for success.
Im not saying a female lead cant reap in the big bucks , because we saw what WW can do, but I think as an evil monster it kind of detracted from the lore of the mummy.
Having a mummy who is attractive and not gruesome is a weird idea to start off with.

 

[LaughterLives]

I don't think you're wrong that may have been a major factor. I think people weren't ready for a modern day take on the Mummy. I think what people loved about Sommer's Mummy was that it was an adventurous period piece that actually took place in Egypt.
This movie never gave that same sense from the start and people didn't respond well to it.

 

[-JKR-]

It didn't work out because you don't make a movie to launch something. You set out to make a great movie which will attract an audience on its own strenghts and ideas, and if it makes a strong enough impact you can extend it to create a universe.

I skipped it in theaters because it didn't look like nothing. I skipped this one because it looked like every other cookie-cutter big-budget blockbuster which happened to have Tom Cruise and a mummy in it.

It didn't look like the director actually had a strong idea on how to make a 'Mummy' movie interesting, exciting and relevant in 2017.

Even the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is now this huge machine, actually started out with a quite unique and personal take by a talented director: Jon Favreau's "Iron Man."

People reacted to it because it had its own kind of charm and tone.

People would've been ready for a modern-day take on "The Mummy" if it actually looked interesting.

 

[terry78]

In all honesty the stinger with Nick Fury was obviously setting up something but it was just the stinger, it wasn't hitting you over the head all through the goddamn picture.

 

[terry78]

Also, I know that was a typo in the title but it sounds like you were talking about a shared universe of white supremacists.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

 

[Black Narcissus]

A female Mummy was not the problem with this movie. Also, I thought I was vain and narcissistic one, but yo ass made this thread just for that? You too good to bump the original. Bald bastah.

 

[terry78]

When your join date is 2004 or earlier you can pretty much do whatever the **** you want on here. Case in point, I own all this ****.

 

[Boom]

I don't think having a female mummy had anything to do with the film's failure at all. It was simply a garbage film and the GA saw that a mile away.

Universal should have taken a page out of New Line's book and come at the Dark Universe as a bonafide horror franchise. Scale the budgets back and make true horror films. Push R-ratings if you want to. You may not get billion-dollar earners like Marvel, but put enough production value into the films and you'd make some respectable profits off of them.

I would have lined up day one if the new Mummy was more akin to The Descent, with archeologists trapped inside the claustrophobic, underground passageways of a pyramid and getting picked off one-by-one by an animated, mummified corpse. Instead, we get a generic action movie with a generic action star fighting a sexified mummy, and an already-weak narrative bogged down by pointless "this is a shared universe" subplots. Yawn.

 

[TheVileOne]

I don't think it's the reason the movie flopped. However, Universal didn't even commit to the idea. Case in point the ending. As I said before the movie came out, the actual Mummy wasn't Sofia Boutella.

 

[LaughterLives]

It didn't work out because you don't make a movie to launch something. You set out to make a great movie which will attract an audience on its own strenghts and ideas, and if it makes a strong enough impact you can extend it to create a universe.

Even the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is now this huge machine, actually started out with a quite unique and personal take by a talented director: Jon Favreau's "Iron Man."

I totally disagree. I mean, yes you shouldn't make a movie for that reason but that's still not reason enough for it to not work. Iron Man had a large and established comic fan base before the film came into existence. It would've done well regardless of its charm cuz of this fact alone. Even if Cruise had starred in it like he was originally supposed to.

Alot of the MCU movies since, have been terribly mediocre and formulaic and they still do extremely well cuz of their established and blind fan base, not at all cuz most of them are actually good films.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

It didn't work out because you don't make a movie to launch something. You set out to make a great movie which will attract an audience on its own strenghts and ideas, and if it makes a strong enough impact you can extend it to create a universe.

I skipped it in theaters because it didn't look like nothing. I skipped this one because it looked like every other cookie-cutter big-budget blockbuster which happened to have Tom Cruise and a mummy in it.

It didn't look like the director actually had a strong idea on how to make a 'Mummy' movie interesting, exciting and relevant in 2017.

Even the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is now this huge machine, actually started out with a quite unique and personal take by a talented director: Jon Favreau's "Iron Man."

People reacted to it because it had its own kind of charm and tone.

People would've been ready for a modern-day take on "The Mummy" if it actually looked interesting.

I think you hit it on the head. Everything seems to be about universe building these days, and I just don't get why. It makes sense for Marvel and DC, but every single movie doesn't have to be part of a shared universe. They're even trying to start one with John Wick! There is ZERO need for that. The film industry, like everything else, has just gotten too trendy, and that ends up causing more issues than it cures.

 

[Mandon Knight]

If they'd carried on with the starting point of the original concept with Dracula Untold which pretty much gave the entire universe it's first footing then you could have built solidly around that, instead they want Hollywood Razzmatazz BS gloss with Cruise giving it full grin and you lose the realism that Untold gave the platform from which to build from. They chose to ignore all that and give us bog standard 'thrills'.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

If they'd carried on with the starting point of the original concept with Dracula Untold which pretty much gave the entire universe it's first footing then you could have built solidly around that, instead they want Hollywood Razzmatazz BS gloss with Cruise giving it full grin and you lose the realism that Untold gave the platform from which to build from. They chose to ignore all that and give us bog standard 'thrills'.

Was Untold originally supposed the one to kickstart the Dark Universe? I didn't know that.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Was Untold originally supposed the one to kickstart the Dark Universe? I didn't know that.

Yep, and they double backed on it. Idiots.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

Yep, and they double backed on it. Idiots.

Well, Untold wasn't exactly a good movie. I know there were some people that enjoyed it, but I just remember being bored. That's not a good sign considering I not only really enjoy the source material, but I really like Luke Evans as well. So I must have been REALLY REALLY bored. I think I even fell asleep watching it.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Well, Untold wasn't exactly a good movie. I know there were some people that enjoyed it, but I just remember being bored. That's not a good sign considering I not only really enjoy the source material, but I really like Luke Evans as well. So I must have been REALLY REALLY bored. I think I even fell asleep watching it.

Fair enough, personally really liked it as a 'different' approach although keeping much of mythos and core detail.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

Fair enough, personally really liked it as a 'different' approach although keeping much of mythos and core detail.

I need to try and watch it again honestly. It seems like the type of movie I'd like as a bit of a guilty pleasure.

 

[Mandon Knight]

I need to try and watch it again honestly. It seems like the type of movie I'd like as a bit of a guilty pleasure.

It's Charles Dance's performance for me that 'makes it'. He doesn't just eat the scenery he chews it, gobbles it and demonstrates why he's so good.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

It's Charles Dance's performance for me that 'makes it'. He doesn't just eat the scenery he chews it, gobbles it and demonstrates why he's so good.

Wtf?! I don't even remember him being in the movie?!

 

[psylockolussus]

When your join date is 2004 or earlier you can pretty much do whatever the **** you want on here. Case in point, I own all this ****.

that's not true.this should have been posted in the DU thread.

 

[terry78]

that's not true.this should have been posted in the DU thread.

Of course it's true.

 

[metaphysician]

If anything, Tom Cruise is the reason it flopped. Both in the sense that Tom Cruise draws eye-rolls, and in the sense that it became a movie about Tom Cruise, rather than a movie about *the monster that is in the title*. If they wanted Hero Mummy, then they should have made the Hero Mummy be, well, the Mummy. The monster who the movie was about. Not the nearest white male "hero" who randomly gets mummy powers.

 

[MOVIELORD101]

I don't think having a female mummy had anything to do with the film's failure at all. It was simply a garbage film and the GA saw that a mile away.

Universal should have taken a page out of New Line's book and come at the Dark Universe as a bonafide horror franchise. Scale the budgets back and make true horror films. Push R-ratings if you want to. You may not get billion-dollar earners like Marvel, but put enough production value into the films and you'd make some respectable profits off of them.

I would have lined up day one if the new Mummy was more akin to The Descent, with archeologists trapped inside the claustrophobic, underground passageways of a pyramid and getting picked off one-by-one by an animated, mummified corpse. Instead, we get a generic action movie with a generic action star fighting a sexified mummy, and an already-weak narrative bogged down by pointless "this is a shared universe" subplots. Yawn.

Fox already did that. It was called The Pyramid and it sucked.

 

[terry78]

Well, there you have it.