• .dan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I don’t need a new Mummy movie. But I might need a new Brendan Fraser Mummy movie.

  • Vanth@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    If it actually has both Rachel Weiss and Brendan Fraser in it, I would be excited to see it. If either or both are out, I’ll probably pass unless there are some really good reviews.

    C’mon, studio. Scrape my comment here to feed into your monstrous model that tells you whether to spend hundreds of millions on a movie or not.

  • JoshsJunkDrawer@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I love how in a year where we get great and unique movies like One Battle After Another, It Was Just an Accident, Weapons, and Caught by The Tides, Hollywood looks at them, shrugs their shoulders, and says “I don’t know, another Mummy I guess?”

    • M137@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Weapons was so fucking bad though… I seriously don’t understand how people don’t agree with that.

    • Zorque@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      How many shitty original movies are there for each good one, though? An established property at least has an audience. Can’t say the same for some random movie picked out of the pile.

  • IWW4@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    I loved the first one, liked the second one until the final hideousness with The Rock. The third one was utter dogshit,.

    I will pass.

  • djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Didn’t they already do this? with Tom Cruise in 2017? Are they just wholesale dismissing the existence of that film? because honestly, fair it was shite.

    • IWW4@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 hours ago

      No. The Cruise mummy movie had no connection to the Frazier movies.

      The Cruise movie was a second attempt to be the anchor of the Dark Universe. (After Dracula Untold shat the bed).

      • caseyweederman@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Time for my TRIsexual awakeningoh people already say that, they say “trYsexual as in I’ll try anything”, now it’s just gross

  • J-Bone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    While I like the original two Mummy movies (Scorpion King was OK), I am not sure what the point of remake or continuation would be.

      • Zorque@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        23 hours ago

        On that note I’d love a Monkeybone sequel.

        I accept that it will be terrible, I just want it.

        • Maven@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Monkeybone wasn’t terrible!

          It wasn’t a well acted or constructed story with amazing dialogue but it set out to be an incredibly weird niche movie with a specific vibe and it nailed that vibe perfectly!

          10/10 movie in my books. It did exactly what it was planning to do.

          • Zorque@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            18 hours ago

            Oh, I agree. I just think it was lightning in a bottle that can’t be captured twice. I just want someone to prove me wrong.

        • BroBot9000@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          The people making sequels only want to accomplish that. That’s the whole point of sequels and franchises.

          Nobody in charge is thinking: “gosh that’s an important or interesting story that has some more depth in it. We should explore that concept in a new way”

          It’s always: “that movie sold enough to justify risking money on producing another product that sells just as much”

      • J-Bone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        That’s a very good question that doesn’t really have an answer.

        I am just not a fan of random sequels, remakes and faux-adaptions (e.g. Foundation or The Man in the High Castles).

        Make a sequel by all means, but make it a unique experience, make it something new, give people that “wow, I didn’t expect that!” feeling.

  • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    I’m all for a Brendan Fraser + Rachel Weisz movie, but why do we need a mummy? How about a completely unconnected original story?

  • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’d watch. At least they haven’t run this one into the ground, like Star Wars, Star Trek, and MCU. Although, Andor was good. I tried watching the new Superman, and… no. I only made it about ten minutes before shutting it off. I think I’ve had my fill of superhero movies.