I haven't watched season 3 yet, but the first 2 are amazing.

And generally speaking, by Kain's standards the 3rd Mummy shouldn't have been titled the Mummy cause Jet Li wasn't even a Mummy nor was he a priest or in love. He fit none of the imaginary mummy requirements.

 

The 3rd Mummy movie should never have been made.

 

Oh, she is gonna be all sorts of CG'd.
Cant wait to see that.

Now, I like the 1st Arnold Vosloo Mummy movie, but is there a definitive Mummy story where the mummy has to be male?

Maybe it's good that this Mummy is a woman; maybe we'll get a Duddy out of it.

 

In the spirit of the other conversation  


Anyway, when is this supposed to be released?

 

Or, or, they can call it The Mummy, because they're the ones making the movie.

That sounds like a you problem.

Did you actually think they were going to dig up Boris to play the Mummy, just so they could get the Kain Seal of Approval?

(Boris would make an even better Mummy now, considering...)

I think it's pretty clear that this is going to be an action movie. They got Tom Cruise to be the lead.

 

Bullshit. You can do super natural horror in any age. It's about the writing, not how realistic it has to be.

Hey, then the movie would have a real mummy in it.  

No, I'm talking about the Karloff movie when I hear "The Mummy." Don't call it "The Mummy" if it isn't going to resemble the original story in any manner. That is just as bad as making a movie on Thor, but instead of featuring Thor, it features Jane cosplaying as Thor.

Oh come on, what the hell is Tom Cruise doing in this thing? Did he run out of Mission Impossible movies to do? Why not go a make a second Edge of Tomorrow?

 

Edge of Tomorrow already had several sequels within it's overly long running time.

 

This is very clearly a different "Mummy" movie -- there's no reason for you to be thinking of Boris Karloff when discussing the 2017 version.

And again, they can call it the Mummy, because that's what they're doing.

  Since it was Marvel Comics that made Jane Foster into Thor, then they could, conceivably, make a Thor movie with Jane as the Mjolnir-wielding hero. Because their character; their prerogative.

(I don't see that happening though, so don't flip out)

I don't know, but the fact that he's in it means it doesn't really matter who the Mummy will be, because they are going to be playing second-fiddle to him.

 

There was a site calling the look rather old school. You know what I kind of like the idea of going sort of old school with the look of the Universal monster universe. Way back in ye old days Universal copyrighted the look of their Frankenstein monster because it was an iconic look so they should play off that iconic look of their past monsters.

I'm also okay with a female Mummy. The Egyptians mummified both men and women so it's not like there is a gender lock to a tragic backstory for someone mummified and out for some sort of revenge. I also really like the character of Menace from Queen's Blade so an attractive woman playing an ancient dead Egyptian is already an appealing concept.

Fingers crossed that Universal can get things right this time to get their shared Monster Universe off the ground. I watch a lot of the old classics on Svengoolie and the old shared Monster Universe was really fun. It would be great if Universal could somehow tap the nostalgia I have for those classics.

 

If they are going to emphasize the horror aspect of it, this might be good. The Stephen Sommers remake was OK in the beginning, but when it got to the point in the movie when Imhotep regained his human appearance, I got bored. Evie was pretty much a Mary-Sue also. The only character I liked was Jonathan because he kept stealing things.

 

We could probably look at this as The Mummy meets Queen of the Damned.

I am prepared to see how it works out anyway, if this female mummy can be terrifying.

 

I disagree with all of what has been said here, but it does still deal with Egypt, so I will see it. I just hope Universal does decide to make a competent movie over just another Dracula Untold generic CGI fest.

 

Dracula Untold I found to be rather interesting. True it has its flaws, but I enjoyed it much better than other stuff we've seen. It was certainly a far cry above The Wolfman with Lord Elrond Sequel Baiting at the end. And Anthony Hopkins was actually the Wolfman and Laurence Talbot became a pathetic wastrel compared to Lon Chaney Jr's interpretation of the character.

 

Heh, I sort of liked it, at least certain parts.

Hated the super-bat powers, but I really liked Luke Evans as Dracula. I'm interested in them moving forward with this Dracula... hopefully with a better story.

 

I enjoyed the updated story of DU. I think Kain, you've got a far too narrow view of what the Mummy can be about. Clearly, you associate it as an individual character rather than a general concept, which the last movie really opened the door for.

Personally, I rather see a new take, but I'm really into general Egypt mummy, gods, Piramids genre of movies. Hell, I like in said earlier. I could get behind a female first version of Frankenstein ' s monster. Lots of potential with that.

 

Dracula Untold was done better when it was called Castlevania Lords of Shadows, and even then, it sucked.

 

You know, at least Dracula Untold was historically accurate on the whole.

Now, why don't you reply to smkspy? In fairness, he is directly addressing you.

 

In what post?

 

Nothing that you have to respond to, just was observing that you have a very specific view of what the Mummy is (a character) vs how the majority here see the Mummy (a concept).

Question will be how open a general public is to a concept Mummy movie because I'm betting they share more your view on it. Probably why they got Tom Cruise. He'll add that star power that won't make them care it's a female.mummy.

 

I see the Mummy as a character, but there might be a chance that, based on the story told, there might be nothing to get mad at.
Is there a definitive origin to protect in this case?