>if the mummy didnt flop we would already have dark universe with other monsters too
this hurts. and hurts even more when the movie still made 400m which is far from flopping for real
why were these frickers so greedy? half of mavrel phase 1 made same money and it was fine for them to continue
 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
Because Ironman 1 was a surprise hit out of nowhere. It was going up against Batnolan and at least held it's ground. Plus the Paramount MCU movies had pentagon funding.
Dark Universe wasn't testing well, and wasn't selling well. It just didn't have the data to back it.
And it's not like Universal were the only ones who fricked up a universe, Paramount tried to turn Transformers into a universe by sacking Michael Bay, they win the fail award and it's not even close.
Why was the mummy so hot?
They wanted to go back to roots of mummy stories. The earliest works of fiction usually focused on fascination and sexualization ofthe mummy. This movie was based on 2 particular novels - "She" and "The israeliteel of Seven Stars" by Bram Stoker.
>The mummy genre has its origins in the 19th century when Egypt was being colonized by France and, subsequently, by Victorian Britain. The first living mummies in fiction were mostly female, and they were presented in a romantic and sexual light, often as love interests for the protagonist; this metaphorically represented the sexualized Orientalism and the colonial romanticization of the East. Notable examples of this trend include The Mummy's Foot by Théophile Gautier, The israeliteel of Seven Stars by Bram Stoker, The Ring of Thoth by Arthur Conan Doyle, She: A History of Adventure and Smith and the Pharaohs by H. Rider Haggard, My New Year's Eve Among the Mummies by Grant Allen, The Unseen Man's Story by Julian Hawthorne, and Iras: A Mystery by H. D. Everett; the latter actually has the protagonist marry a mummy which takes on the form of a beautiful woman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy_(undead)#History
Shame they ruined this film with a shitty universe nobody asked for.. because otherwise it is simply the best mummy film up to date, and second to be true to the source as "Blood from mummy's tomb" was the first one.
cool
Dracula Untold didn't help either.
Was that part of the Dark Universe? I always thought it was a seperate thing that was briefly floated as the basis of a universe.
It should have been the basis.
It should have been A basis, whether or not Dark Universe was the appropriate way to move forward with it is a different matter.
Dracula Untold was fairly good, I have no idea why it got the hate it did. Still bizarre to me
Dracula Untold was based.
>Luke Evans when he realizes she doesn't have a penis
I'm mad, but I'm glad that Universal is finally making a Universal Monters land in their new Epic Universe park. I'd been saying for years they should let the Mouse have Marvel, and replace their Superhero Island at Islands of Adventure with Monsters, but this works.
It didn't get hate, it didn't get anything, it had all the impact of a soft fart.
Most of the people who liked it long after it had flopped.
>Most of the people who liked it only saw it long after it had flopped.
Dunno what happened there.
I have a theory that its advertisement campaign got snuffed out by the mouse somehow. Just a stupid theory, because it's otherwise a very competent movie that tried a new spin on a character in a culturally interesting way (what I mean by culturally interesting is it had the big cgi fights that audiences of that time really wanted and expected).
Well obviously marketing is to blame, though that by no means extends to a mouse-led conspiracy.
I can tell you that my initial reaction to it was "This is a Twilight clone."
Which it wasn't, but marketers don't get a fair hearing, an instant judgement like that is just marketing 101. The trouble with the Twilight audience is it's not very big and it chases away a bigger audience.
It's worth serving them because they're probably the most loyal audience, but you've got to be careful to seperate that from that bigger Marvel audience.
>cringevengers but this time it’s the mummy, dracula, frankenstein, a werewolf, jekyll/hyde and the bog monster
That was always a terrible idea.
You were never the target audience, nobody gives a frick about you, you don't matter.
The audience is the audience that paid a billion dollars for Deadpool, AND YOU'RE NOT PART OF THAT.
Cope loser.
Capeshit but monsters never ever
>Capeshit but monsters never ever
Yeah Black person that's the fricking point you dumb frick.
Only you're sitting there jerking off to "no capeshit" because nobody fricking like you.
In reality it's the monster part that was the problem, and you don't fricking matter because you don't pay for films.
Keep seething manbaby
>angry Black person noises
Cool story bro
it's not even a new idea. Monster movie teamups happened all the time since the 60s.
And also the flagship movie sucked ass
The movie flopped because the audience didn't want another capeshit movie. They went to see Cruise in a mummy movie. They got baited and switched. Frick the dark universe bullshit. It was the cancer that killed Cruise mummy kino.
>inb4 some comic gay cries the dark universe is the original mythos or some shit like that
Frick off. Don't care. Keep your mythos where it belongs, in your gaygity convention discussions.
>Keep your mythos where it belongs, in your gaygity convention discussions.
Alex Kurtzman fricks everything up
They knew the pandemic was coming. Who? I don't know but I bet if I start looking I'm not gonna like what I find. Other than being validated of course.
Blumhouse said that Universal is still doing this and The Mummy twitter page posted something about Renfield being next. They hired better people and kicked Alex Kurtzman who basically ruined this.
Well see.
I think it needs more than better people, I think it needs better IP. This is steampunk + urban fantasy, alone they're both only good in small doses and rarely hit a mainstream audience, together like what are the going for here? The Hellboy 2 audience?
Bright colours and comfy feels are kinda necessary for a universe.
Cutting and running is better than finding yourself in a DC situation where they tried to force it and then backtrack and then revert on the backtrack and now they don't know which way is up.
Unirionically true.
They made a mess, but at least it was a small one.
I feel like LXG should have been their real example of why not to do this shit. If not that than Van Helsing. Or heck even the shitty IFrankenstein movie.
People never like seeing these characters team up and the reasoning is always stupid.
Van Helsing was based, and LXG was fun. What are you talking about?
>my instincts are usually pretty good.
sure, you know what's best for Hollywood...lmao
LXG killed Connery's career.
I liked Van Helsing too but it didn't do well.
>didn't do well.
damn, so making $300 million on a $160 budget is performing poorly?
>inb4 Hollywood aCcoUnTinG
Why no sequel then?
Why move goalposts then?
>no argument
seethe
homosexual, you made the argument that it didn't do well.
i asked for clarification, "is making $300 mil against $160 million not 'doing well'?"
you didn't answer, and instead brought up some other point of, "if it did well, why no sequel". that's moving the goalpost. set your parameters beforehand if you don't want to look like a clown.
You also said
>inb4 hOlLyWoOd aCcoUnTinG
even though you know that's exactly why it wasn't considered a success.. Which is why they didn't make anymore of them. Only clown here is you.
Okay, you have nothing constructive to discuss, and just want to shitpost to keep an otherwise dead thread going. Good luck, pal.
Nothing to discuss. Movie was shit, like your opinion. Go cry about it on reddit.
Dracula Untold was fantastic. Best version of the legend to date.
Dracula, the Mummy, Frankenstein’s Monster, the Invisible Man and the Wolfman teaming up to fight Cthulhu or something is the kind of stupid shit I’d be down for. Shame it didn’t get off the ground but The Mummy was a decent flick in spite of everything
>teaming up to fight Cthulhu or something
I disagree. I'm seeing the last act of Fan4stic level cringe.
That's not thrilling. And Van Helsing has failed twice now. Three times if you include the BBC series.
Maybe I'm not the audience here, but I'm not feeling it, and my instincts are usually pretty good.
Current slate of films. Note that there are also animations listed.
Renfield is next. Then either Wolfman or Van Helsing. They put Dark Army on hold until all other monsters have their own movies.
The biggest problem is PG-13 horror movies rarely work. If Netflix were not so pozzed, they could do a good version of this idea since these characters are public domain but they would make them trans aborigines or something.
R rating wouldn't change much there. The Mummy kills in bloodless way, she just sucks vital energy and turns you into dry corpse. However Dracula obviously needs R rating. Wolfman too. Frankenstein not really. Some of these monsters are indeed PG13. I mean how old was Shelley when she wrote Frankenstein? 14? 15?
Really only Dracula and Wolfman require R rating. The rest are neo-gothic horror icons and gothic horror is pretty tame, mostly suggestive than graphic.
The Dracula they're doing with Nicholas Cage is going to be really campy and goofy Hotel Transylvania style. It's a romantic comedy movie.
ohhh nooo.
Good. Universal Monsters were campy but not silly. I hope this is campy but acts serious. I mean watch original Dracula or I don't know, Frankenstein? The Invisible Man? They are campy as frick but they stay serious in their camp-ness. The Mummy with Tom Cruise was also campy, with some some slap stick moments too, but the tone was rather dark and serious compared to silly crap like Van Helsing with Jackman. Man that was borderline parody. Campy does not mean parody. Evil Dead is the best example.
Evil Dead 1 is campy and still rather serious. Evil Dead 2 is campy parody of 1.
Not every film would necessarily need an R-rating but enough key films in the series would. They should just make the most entertaining film possible and if it turns out to be "R-rated" (or "PG-13") so be it. Netflix releases films on their own platform so they do not have to worry about the MPAA rating. Netflix would find other ways to frick it up though.
>Universal has a streaming service you know.
Yeah, but Universal does not seem willing to put a real significant budget behind a film that would go direct to streaming like Netflix will.
>Not every film would necessarily need an R-rating but enough key films in the series would.
This is a terrible approach. R-rated films can make money, Deadpool, Logan, Joker, but you can't half arse it. If you go for teens AND adults you'll get neither. You have to sell the whole thing at once.
This is why the MCU is ailing and Disney+ is doing about as well as Peawiener despite a strong start. They thought
>Oh we'll sell Captain Female to women and Spiderman to men and Black Pander to blacks and...
No you'll sell nothing to nobody. If the billion dollar audience you're actually after here can't have it all they don't want any of it.
On the other hand if you wanted to go to a streaming model you can take that billion dollars and turn it into 6bil/year if you
1. Find the audience and hit it
2. Stick with them. Keep THEM subbed rather than trying to broaden it out.
Netflix will just gay it up. They're boycott magnets. Peawiener actually could do it as a relaunch campaign as part of a larger strategy.
I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. None of the movies would need to be "rated" on a streaming platform like they are if they are released theatrically. Each movie would be like an "episode" telling a larger story. Not every episode of Stranger Things is "R-rated," some are "PG-13." Nobody really cares; they care about the larger story and if the episode was entertaining.
Sure. But Netflix doesn't lower the parental control for PG-13 episodes. It's ASSUMED R even if it doesn't actually qualify.
I'm not in that audience so I can't comment but my feeling is it's very popular with female entertainment journalists but not much more. It's probably getting the Twilight audience but I don't know that for a fact.
R-rated horror doesn't do well at the box office.
Universal has a streaming service you know.
Dracula Untold was PG-13. I don't think there's any intention of going for horror, more urban fantasy.
mcu have thanos as the build-up big bad villain so whos going to be thanos of paramount dark universe?
And before Thanos you need a Loki.
They never wanted any monster team up to fight bigger threat, this is some asspull created by journalists and bloggers only.
The original plan of the Dark Universe was to have Prodigium vs different monsters and maybe some crossovers where 2-3 monsters join forces to face humans. Think of it as "Men In Black: Monsters Edition" rather than "Avengers" and the worst thing is that just because of these capeshit obsessed idiots completely misunderstanding the idea this universe failed. They instantly assumed something and criticized the movie and the whole concept based on their assumption.
>just because of these capeshit obsessed idiots completely misunderstanding the idea this universe failed.
The only reason the Universe was even an idea in the first place was because "capeshit obsessed idiots" were shelling out 3bil a year on Marvel.
Don't blame the audience.
I liked Dracula untold
We already reached peak kino with league of extraordinary Gentlemen and Jackman's Van Helsing. Why even try again
Friendly reminder that The Mummy made 409M, which is more than any other monster films like Wolfman 2010 or that Dracula Untold and even this new Invisible Man, and the only reason they call it a flop is because of production budget. This movie cost them 125M. Previous mummy film also made 400M but had slightly lower budget of 80M. If this movie was made for 90M instead of 125M then it wouldn't be a flop. Also it's in top 10 highest grossing Tom Cruise films, and top5 if you exclude Mission Impossible series. Universal heads are just stupid, they wasted too much money and then flushed everything down the toilet instead of improving it. Shit happens, get over it. The main purpose of The Mummy was to introduce the dark universe. Now all they have to do is to work on it, not fricking scrap it. The lack of commitment will work against them. How many times are they going to start over and over again? This is going to bore any annoy viewers. They don't want to pay for something that leads fricking nowhere because the studio can't even follow their own plans. Even idiots at Sony are still working on their shitty capeshit universe despite 3 shit movies in a row.
It wasn’t the first dark universe movie they tried to do it with the Dracula movie that came out many years ago but that underperformed as well. They just had no idea what they were doing. It shouldn’t even have been modern day, it should’ve been an adventure serial, and took place in the 1910s or so like the 90s movie literally everyone loved.
It absolutely needs to be modern day. Enough with clichés. Also when Bram Stoker wrote Dracula in 1897 is was modern day for him too. It was something happening 200 years before. The book worked because it was presented as horror happening right behind the corner. In addition it was written in more documentary way with letters and news articles. This feed paranoia and made Dracula actually work. Nobody gives a shit about horror happening 200 years ago. Jack the Ripper also added to the success of Dracula.
If you want to make Dracula relevant again you must also move him to current days. Otherwise it will be seen as caricature of itself. Dracula must be personification of death - a ruthless killer messing around the darkest alley in London.
So in the style of V for Vendetta then?
I see it, I don't see Nick Cage being a part of it except possibly as "the actor playing Dracula" whom the real Dracula takes issue with.
I don't see the audience for it tho, and I can see what's attracting you, I just don't think there that many of you. As in fact this post
says, most monster films just don't do well. And that just kills it as the potential basis for a universe. The mummy actually did exceptionally well by monster movie standards, but poorly compared to other universes, then you just can't have $150mil budgets for monster movies. That's showbusiness.
>I see it, I don't see Nick Cage being a part of it
I can see it. This is my prediction based on official synopsis.
>Cage Dracula is old and gross. He's hiding in shadows. He's weak but still powerful enough to control Renfield's mind. Renfield brings victims. Knocks them unconscious and brings to Dracula's shelter - most of campy comedic momens will come from Renfield's incompetence while doing so. Dracula needs to feed. Slowly gains powers and then Renfield falls in love. She notices this and Renfield breaks the curse. They plan to kill Dracula. Renfield still has to pretend he's under Dracula's influence but he's secretly trying to kill him. The movie ends with Dracula being defeated and then when cops arrive Dracula's body is gone.
Now if they really want to tie it to the rest of monsters:
>Renfield is taken to mental asylum. Doors open. a mysterious man comes in. "So you are the one who defeated Dracula? Fascinating. I have an offer..." quick shot at medical papers, they are signed 'Dr Henry J(unreadable)' screen goes dark.
And now if they really want to use Cage as Dracula later:
>Main title card "Renfield"old fashioned font drops. Shot of a dark alley, Cage Dracula laughing. The end, rest of end credits.
I read that in Cage's voice and dropped it.
Good god you sound just like one of those dumbass Hollywood producers. Nevermind the fact that James Wan's Conjuring cinematic universe proves that there is a desire for period horror and it can be more successful than modern horror.
recent leaks made me really fricking angry they scrapped this
>van helsing movie was supposed to act as dracula untold sequel where helsing and jekyll have to face elisabeth bathory and dracula himself (elisabeth bathory was portrayed as draculas great grand daughter)
>bride of frankenstein was supposed to be artistic drama half in 19th century and then half in current day
>they planned mid budget wolfman film with ryan gosling in style of nightcrawler
>dark army with old and new monsters coming together
man dark universe had a chance to be the most interesting one i mean artistic drama and mid budget horror take on werewolf. now its all fricking gone
dark universe was just a smooth brain attempt to copy the MCU; forgetting that the MCU was only a thing because they had multiple unexpectedly successful movies in a short time
trying to launch a decades long multi-dozen film extended universe with a single stand alone movie is as premature as obsessing over the guest list for your wedding on a first date
they have been shitting these XXI century movies out for a while and I'm not counting dozens of XX century ones that predate even the concept of marvel studios movies
>van helsing 2004
>Wolfman 2010
>dracula untold 2014
>the mummy 2017
so in theory they had more experience but the problem is each of them was critically panned and they never committed to make anything out of these. Dracula Untold was even reshot to fit settings from the mummy and then they dropped it out
mcu basically forced their universe upon audience because even if Ironman would flop then there was Hulk in 3 months later and then captain America already slated for next year.
Hulk was so shit it's debatably not even canon.
Captain America 1 is universally held as the worst movie in Phase 1.
Marvel didn't force shit, what they did was come up with a good concept and sell it to a large and hungry audience then frick it up 12 years later because twitter called them sexist.
And whether you personally like Marvel or not it doesn't change that.
What I'm hearing ITT is generally two seperate demands.
1. A not-Marvel cinematic universe.
2. More monster movies in the classic style.
But I think what really needs to be made clear at this point is that those two things are mutually exclusive regardless of whether either is actually possible.
If you want more monstershit you can have it, on a sensible budget, on a streaming platform.
If you want another MCU, well I'd say you could have that too but it will be capeshit not monstershit, but given how many times it's been fricked up I'm no longer confident in the statement.
But those are two very different things.
who was johnny supposed to play?
The Mummy did not flop, it ended up making almost 4x its budget in ticket sales alone
Killed a franchise. But "didn't flop". You guys are delusional. It's a dead concept founded on shitty movies, let it go.
Franchise fell apart for several reasons, movie was underwhelming from the reception pov but NOT in box office terms-- it was lucrative enough. Stop fighting numbers.
Imo it failed bc it was too juvenile but actors were adults. The studio didn't want Hammerstyle movies, it wanted another dumbed down pg13 MCU.