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

[Matt Mortem]

Yes, exactly my point, some group of empty suits saying "we need a strong female character, lets film a sexy Mummy!" is not what they needed IMO. They could have made her female, still not my point, just make her a female with the scary look to her like I pointed out. Again, Im not saying this is the ONLY reason why it failed, but I think it didnt help.

Dude. Come on. The Boutella Mummy ends up more monstrous in the end of the film than Vosloo's was, but if Vosloo's Mummy came out today would you be whining online that the design wasn't scary enough? If anything Boutella's Mummy design was made to be "scarier" than Vosloo's or Karloff's. At the end of the film Vosloo's Mummy was wearing a skirt. At the end of the 2017 Mummy Bouttella is still covered in bandages and has a somewhat monstrous appearance with her eyes and pale skin.

The design had zip zero zilch nada effect on the failings of this film.

If you were in here saying that the Dark Universe was a soulless corporate cash grab to make a buck off the shared universe it'd be a valid reason the movie failed. If you said the script was a sloppy mess with too much exposition it would be a valid reason the film failed. Instead you used the phrase "strong female character" in a biting, negative way as one of the reasons the movie failed.

Say what you mean.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

Dude. Come on. The Boutella Mummy ends up more monstrous in the end of the film than Vosloo's was, but if Vosloo's Mummy came out today would you be whining online that the design wasn't scary enough? If anything Boutella's Mummy design was made to be "scarier" than Vosloo's or Karloff's. At the end of the film Vosloo's Mummy was wearing a skirt. At the end of the 2017 Mummy Bouttella is still covered in bandages and has a somewhat monstrous appearance with her eyes and pale skin.

The design had zip zero zilch nada effect on the failings of this film.

If you were in here saying that the Dark Universe was a soulless corporate cash grab to make a buck off the shared universe it'd be a valid reason the movie failed. If you said the script was a sloppy mess with too much exposition it would be a valid reason the film failed. Instead you used the phrase "strong female character" in a biting, negative way as one of the reasons the movie failed.

Say what you mean.

I did say what I mean. I think their version or portrayal of the mummy didnt help. Why dont you say what you mean? Or do you just repeat a circular argument to just keep coming back? [shrugs]

 

[terry78]

Basically they never really made her hideous except when she was all decomposed and **** before she regenerated.

 

[Matt Mortem]

Basically they never really made her hideous except when she was all decomposed and **** before she regenerated.

Which has been the case with all of the Mummy's with the exception of perhaps some of the Hammer films.

 

[metaphysician]

The hideousness or lack thereof had zip to do with the failure of the movie. Especially since she barely got any plot attention, compared to Random Unheroic White Dude.

 

[DrCosmic]

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.

This. The method for successfully selling your stockholders on a shared universe and successfully selling the public are totally different. All the "This will be the next big thing, look at our stars" drives up stock price, but it makes most of the audience sick.

 

[MbJ]

There's a good analysis here.

[YT]DKvouWcjrHg[/YT]

Basically (aside from it obviously not being good), he argues the Mummy was not a good choice to launch this universe to begin with, because the Mummy as a character is kind of generic and not nearly as memorable or beloved as Dracula or Frankenstein's Monster. Even the previous reboot focused less on using the Mummy himself as a selling point, and more on just being a fun, funny action movie that happened to have a mummy in it. The reboot falls into the same pitfall as the original movie, with the Mummy herself being unmemorable and not having a whole hell of a lot of screentime. However, while the original film made up for this by being atmospheric and creepy, the new movie doesn't have a lot of horror elements in it.

While focusing on the human characters over the Mummy was a that take worked perfectly fine for the Brendan Fraser films, it doesn't really work when you're trying to do something inherently IP-based like this Dark Universe, where the whole appeal is supposed to come from getting these characters together onscreen. He suggests it would've been far smarter to start with the Dr. Jekyll movie they want to do with Russell Crowe, as that had far more potential to be engaging on a character level.

 

[Matt Mortem]

I agree that launching the Dark Universe with The Mummy wasn't the best idea, but I get why they went that way. Dracula Untold flopped and that Victor Frankenstein movie (though not Universal) was absolute garbage. The Wolfman in 2010 didn't do too great either. So there you have three flagship monsters who didn't light the world on fire, but The Mummy was a success with the Brendan Fraser movie. I understand why Universal did it, but I see why it backfired.

 

[terry78]

Just move ahead with Invisible Man and Black Lagoon unless Shape of Water steals its thunder.

 

[Matt Mortem]

I think Bride is a smart move for the next. I'd wait and see on Black Lagoon because of Shape of Water. Invisible Man will be interesting. Is Depp still a major box office draw?

 

[Asr]

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.

Agree with this so much. The Fraser Mummy movies succeeded at being period "adventure" movies, while a new Mummy movie could have succeeded by going completely in the horror direction, maybe even like a James Wan-style movie. Now that would've been something I could've easily seen myself buying a ticket for on opening weekend too!

Timing is also key for these movies too. I'm willing to bet that if it had come out in the fall during the build-up to Halloween it might have done better. Not at the beginning of the summer when most people aren't usually looking for these types of "monster" movies. IMO, any "Dark Universe" movies that Universal plans on making should come out in the fall (September or October), when they're more likely to make bank.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

One thing ,Im sure most would agree on, is that the 'Dark' universe they tried to launch....very much lacked any gothic elements or any 'true' horror at all. You would think you have these classic horror characters, lets try to surround them in their own element and ramp up the horror.

 

[Matt Mortem]

Maybe with the runaway success of IT Universal will realize there's big money to be made on horror if they try. Who knows.

 

[metaphysician]

Going in the "modern adventure, monsters as dark superheroes" direction could have worked. It just would have required *actually making the monster the star of the show*. Have the Mummy as the dark, edgy anti-hero lead. Or as the even darker villain protagonist lead. But either way, the Mummy should have been the lead. Not Tom Cruise.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

Going in the "modern adventure, monsters as dark superheroes" direction could have worked. It just would have required *actually making the monster the star of the show*. Have the Mummy as the dark, edgy anti-hero lead. Or as the even darker villain protagonist lead. But either way, the Mummy should have been the lead. Not Tom Cruise.

I concur with that thought. Once they decided to bring good ol' Tommy on board, Im sure his egocentric views on the movie's direction got changed drastically.

 

[TheVileOne]

Tom Cruise was made into the Mummy though of sorts and I think the idea was he was being made into a dark edgy anti-hero lead.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

Going in the "modern adventure, monsters as dark superheroes" direction could have worked. It just would have required *actually making the monster the star of the show*. Have the Mummy as the dark, edgy anti-hero lead. Or as the even darker villain protagonist lead. But either way, the Mummy should have been the lead. Not Tom Cruise.

Well, I'm assuming this was meant to be explored in the defacto sequel that may not happen now. I didn't follow the box office at all. Did this thing even manage to turn a profit?

 

[TheVileOne]

Well, I'm assuming this was meant to be explored in the defacto sequel that may not happen now. I didn't follow the box office at all. Did this thing even manage to turn a profit?

It made $407 million off $125 million budget...so...maybe? It depends on what kind of split they got off foreign split, how much Cruise gets on the back end, and how much they really spent on the P&A.

 

[Wildcard]

It made $407 million off $125 million budget...so...maybe? It depends on what kind of split they got off foreign split, how much Cruise gets on the back end, and how much they really spent on the P&A.

If it did make a profit, it's definitely minuscule. This one is pretty much a flop no matter how you try to slice it.

Still agree with those that hope they move ahead with the other projects.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

If it did make a profit, it's definitely minuscule. This one is pretty much a flop no matter how you try to slice it.

Still agree with those that hope they move ahead with the other projects.

This was a MONSTROUS case of counting your chickens before they hatched.

 

[metaphysician]

Tom Cruise was made into the Mummy though of sorts and I think the idea was he was being made into a dark edgy anti-hero lead.

Not really the same thing, in any meaningful way. "The Mummy", in the iconic sense, is supposed to be an ancient Egyptian sorcerer-priest, cursed and entombed, awakened in the present day, etc.

Tom Cruise may have magic superpowers, but he's not The Mummy. That was Ahmanet. Who they killed off.

 

[metaphysician]

Well, I'm assuming this was meant to be explored in the defacto sequel that may not happen now. I didn't follow the box office at all. Did this thing even manage to turn a profit?

Even if they had made money, they couldn't have explored it in the sequel, seeing as they killed Ahmanet off.

 

[Matt Mortem]

Ahmanet can always come back. That's the nature of these monsters. My concern is that they're gonna make Dracula some kind of brooding anti-hero or some ****. He's a villain. A true ****ing villain.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

Even if they had made money, they couldn't have explored it in the sequel, seeing as they killed Ahmanet off.

Sorry I meant they could have explored the passed along powers. That's all.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

Luke Evans on Dracula in Universal's monster world :

http://sciencefiction.com/2017/10/17/dracula-untold-luke-evans-universal-dark-universe/