8mm Forum: The Mummy - 2017 Version

This is topic The Mummy - 2017 Version in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004396

Posted by Brad Kimball (Member # 5) on May 22, 2017, 08:39 PM:

Why, O'h why do they even bother? Just re-release the originals back into the theatres. Hell, colorize them if you must. Seriously, this new version looks like a big bag of poo. Tom Cruise - seriously? The guy who mows my lawn could act better than him. The mummy being a woman could be an interesting switch, but I won't pay $15 US to see anything with Cruise in it. He's so talentless and, as a person, I understand he's not very nice. How do people like him get to be such big stars? E'h, I'll stick with my Karloff and Chaney originals.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on May 23, 2017, 03:00 AM:

The trailer looks very poor.

Makes the 1999 one look like a good proper classic itself.

Bit like the new Kong makes the 2005 look a really good proper film wise.

Best Mark.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on May 23, 2017, 06:39 AM:

The mummy being a woman. So this once again is the PC version. No doubt there will be a James Bond film where a female MUST play 007. Thats the day i stop going to see them!
Utter nonsense.

Posted by Paul Browning (Member # 2715) on May 23, 2017, 06:47 AM:

It will be Eddie Izzard more like Tom, that'll confuse the enemy, could play "M " too , save them some money ......

Posted by Mark Mander (Member # 340) on May 23, 2017, 07:28 AM:

I don't get making remake after remake of the same films, with all the technology these days you'd think they would do something new, even the Disney Pixars are the same thing but with different characters.

Posted by Mark L Barton (Member # 1512) on May 23, 2017, 09:12 AM:

Films are remade to cater for new audiences. Each with a slightly different approach to changes in cultural and social tastes. Look at Batman and Spiderman, both historically and culturally, its the same theme, Dark Knight, Lonely Neighnourhood hero, but each time in the story telling there are changes.
My favourite film, The Poseidon Adventure was remade as Poseidon. In the original a sub sea earhquake causes the wave, in the remake a vew member states 'something is not quite right' boom the wave appears, so its been simplified (I mean does anyone know what a subsea earthquake is anyway??)
, well we did in teh 70's but not in the noughties) Remakes are either dumbed down or CGI'ed up, but its done to for new audiences to buy cinema tickets and blu rays etc.

Posted by Carter Bradley (Member # 984) on May 23, 2017, 12:35 PM:

I read an article where it was stated that a rogue wave (explanation in "Poseidon") is much more common than the subsea earthquake ("Poseidon Adventure"'s explanation). Of course global warming could have something to do with this!!!

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on May 25, 2017, 09:01 AM:

I saw the trailer to this one.
I will be giving this one a wide berth that's for sure.
YUK ! What the hell do they think they are doing ?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 25, 2017, 11:43 AM:

Yeah, at least the 1999 version had the good sense to know it was just having fun ... with at least decent effects.

The posters for this film say it all, "Tom Cruise does the Mummy"

... Hey! he's getting up there in years! How about ...

Tom Cruise IS the mummy!! (haha)

(and I don't apologize to any Tom Cruise fans!! hah!)

... and now he's just announced "Top Gun 2: The search for geritol"!

Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on May 25, 2017, 04:09 PM:

Could I suggest Priscilla Presley as The Mummy she can't act which will make Cruise look talented and she doesn't need any make up as she already looks like she has been stuffed or recently undead. Poor Tom Jones must be getting a treat every night. What new pussycat 🙀🙀. I see wee Tom is going to give the world Top Gun 2 as if the first movie wasn't bad enough. I think his last two movies tanked so he must be on the last round up for cash before he goes back on the mothership to meet Ron Hubbard. 👽👽👽👽

Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 67) on May 30, 2017, 11:45 AM:

My, my. I've never seen a film panned so severely by people who haven't even seen it yet. oh well. I question the need to remake the remake of the remake, but it might be fun.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 30, 2017, 12:09 PM:

Yeah, you might be right about that (being hard) ...

but I'm just wincing at the thought of Tom Cruise doing what he always does, you know, doing more than enuf money shots where he looks almost directly at the screen as if to allow his teeth to "gleem" and sub-consciencly saying,

" Hi it's me, Tom Cruise ... in a mummy film!"

Ohhhhhh, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, where are you when we so desperately need you? (sigh ... time to top in a DVD of the classics!) [Smile]

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on May 30, 2017, 02:45 PM:

Tom Cruise is an incredibly hard working professional actor and producer.

Of course, each movie must be judged upon it's own merits, but at least give it the dignity to watch the finished movie prior to judgement.

I thought that MIP "Rogue Nation" was a triumph of witty scripting, action, direction, production and cinematography.

A very professional gentleman.

Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on May 30, 2017, 02:46 PM:

Tom was actually quite good in Interview with a Vampire. Fact is his best three film were The Firm Interview and Mission Impossible which he is still milking dear knows how many sequels later. After those three films he became a bit of a knob. Whether overexposure to Kubrick and Spielberg had the blood running to his head who knows. Anyway let's hope he brings his shoe box.

Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on May 30, 2017, 05:23 PM:

I really like some of Cruise's recent films such as Edge of Tomorrow and Jack Reacher. But this one, which I saw a few days ago at an advance screening, is not enjoyable at all.
There's one good idea, though, that I won't spoil, involving another classic character, that is supposedly laying down the track for future films of the Dark Universe (UP's label for their new monster franchise).
Invisible Man and Bride of Frankenstein are already in prep (the later being helmed by Bill Condon - that at least being a good move) and Kurtzman (the producer) is craving to bring back the Gill Man.
If Mummy is a success, you better get used to the fact that our beloved classic monsters might be mistreated in future films.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 01, 2017, 11:45 AM:

OK, I'll give credit where credit is due. I did like "Minority Report" and the fact that Tom Cruise was in it, didn't distract from how good the film was. [Smile]

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on June 04, 2017, 03:56 PM:

mind you, there not remakes any more, they are "re launches" [Big Grin]

Posted by Bradford A Moore (Member # 426) on June 08, 2017, 09:19 AM:

Hollywood has no original ideas anymore! I'm all for bringing back the originals to the big screen in there original Black and White glory! Two things I hate most are colorized films, and dubbed films! Me TV is showing the first season of Gilligan's Island colorized, which should be Black and White, and it looks horrible. The second season was shot originally in color and looks great. We have a Drive In near us, how great it would look to show any of those original Univeral horror movies, or even the color Hammer films! Surely better than any of this garbage!

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 1183) on June 08, 2017, 10:14 AM:

Hollywood has been remaking their films almost as long as there have been movies. Each remake needs to stand (or fall) on it's own merits.

For example:

Look at the 1960 Psycho, and then the 1998 remake. Although almost identical, shot for shot, the 1960 is a great film and the remake sucks.

Look at the 1931 Maltese Falcon and then the 1941 remake. They are almost word for word the same script, but the 1931 version moves about as fast as paint drying, and the 1941 version is a great film.

Look at "Chicago", first made in 1927 and remade in 1942 (as Roxy Hart), and again in 2002. All were pretty good films with very different interpretations of the same story.

Remakes are nothing new.

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on June 09, 2017, 05:20 PM:

As an actor, these "remakes" are to showcase these "stars" (more like asteroids), so the audiences of today will see them in the same light as audiences saw the original actors - Of course, there were few remakes back then - No need - Seriously, I wouldn't bother with rehashings of the old films - Half the time it is a waste of film (rare these days), talent (what there is of it) and time (oh, so precious) - No doubt there will be a franchise continuation of GODZILLA, KONG, ALIEN and DC/MARVEL, and others - I wouldn't turn down a part in anything, but there is part of me that would much rather see an original concept (or close to one), and approach theatre for what it is - I'll admit some effects and "moments" in these kind of films have intrigued me for the last decade or so, but I could put all those moments and effects onto one 1600' reel and be done with a quick wrap-around story - One man's take on it, Shorty

Posted by Guy Taylor, Jr. (Member # 786) on June 09, 2017, 07:26 PM:

Do you think when they finished shooting THE MUMMY the director said, "that's a wrap"?

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on June 09, 2017, 07:49 PM:

I heard it embalmed at the box office!

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on June 09, 2017, 09:28 PM:

The trailer looks ok [Cool]

...good music from the 60s in the trl that is, plus its even got Gladiator himself.. Russell Crowe in it...looks like a fun film [Smile]

Oh! just remembered just last week watched Tom Cruise in Valkyrie...good movie.

Regarding remakes a few years back I ran "Flight of the Phoenix" 2004 with Dennis Quaid and company. I thought it was pretty good in its own right. I would really like to find a 35mm print of it. :cool

Just remembered again.. some Mummy films I ran at the cinema...The Mummy 1999...The Mummy Returns in 2001 and then there was The Mummy "Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" in 2008 I think "The Rock" was in the second one cant remember for sure...still got the trls somewhere [Roll Eyes]

[ June 09, 2017, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Graham Ritchie ]

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on June 10, 2017, 08:57 AM:

How about just looking at this as a film in its own right and not as a remake. I don't see why it has to be compared to anything else.
Such knee-jerk reactions are puzzling to me. I'm sure most on here would class both Dracula (57) and Dracula (31) as "classics". Yet, wasn't the 57 version a 'remake'? Indeed, wasn't the 31 version a 'remake' of Murnau's Nosferatu?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 10, 2017, 12:41 PM:

Guy, funny stuff!

Micheal has a point. I wonder if our reactions are more because we HAVE seen the original FIRST. If we hadn't seen the original film first, would we have such a low opinion of the "remake".

I believe old school special effects films are a case of this in reverse order. We see the new KING KONG (Peter jackson) and it looks absolutely fabulous ... but I then watch the 1933 "King Kong" and I am completely bored stiff, as well as not taken in any any way, shape or form by what obviously appears to me as terrible stop motion animation.

I know, I'll probably get some people going [Eek!]

at that last comparison, but i think it's valid.

Posted by Joe Vannicola (Member # 4156) on June 13, 2017, 10:36 PM:

Tom, remakes these days are also referred to as "reboots". Me? I'm old school; I still call them remakes.

Posted by Bill Harris (Member # 5473) on June 23, 2017, 12:46 PM:

I saw Tom Cruise meets the Mummy. I thought it played well as a comedy. Sort of like the old Abbott & Costello Meet the Mummy.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2