Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Will you go see The Mummy when it comes out?
- Thread starter JamesMike
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I generally refuse to see remakes. It's time for Hollywood to start making non-superhero original movies again.
So you didn't see the 1999 Mummy movie (with Brendan Fraser) because the 1932 movie was the original
I'll probably go see it, So far the trailers look good and I like some of the changes they seemed to have made in the movie. I may wait until it hits TV, by way of on demand, or netflix as the cost of movie tickets is prohibitively high
That would require Hollywood hire real writers instead of C- and D-grade fanboys, and/or for greedy execs to stop scouring pop culture looking for things to taint with their ridiculous 'modern' or 're-imagined' take in an effort to make some easy money on nostalgia.
So you didn't see the 1999 Mummy movie (with Brendan Fraser) because the 1932 movie was the original
I'll probably go see it, So far the trailers look good and I like some of the changes they seemed to have made in the movie. I may wait until it hits TV, by way of on demand, or netflix as the cost of movie tickets is prohibitively high
I think that the point @Plutonius was trying to make - which is a fair one - is that increasingly, Hollywood relies on remakes rather than seeking out new stories.
It is not just that this is unimaginative (even if it is trying to tell an old story in a new way), it is that, sometimes, the original was so good that it said and told all that needed to be said and told.
The movie Nosferatu is almost a century old (it was released in 1922, a masterpiece of German Expressionism) yet I have rarely seen a more spellbinding telling of that tale.
Last edited:
Which is why I mentioned the 1932 version, because the complaint about hollywood not being original, is not a new argument.
Of course there are sequels, remakes and "tentpole" flicks to fund the movie industry, but there's plenty of original (I'd include from existing written source material), non-superhero movies out every year, which are fantastic (obviously just being "original" isn't a license for excellence).
Just from 2016 that we've seen (and in a few cases purchased and have re-watched 3+ times):
Moonlight
Paterson
Don't Breathe
Kubo and the Two Strings
Green Room
Moana
Hunt for the Wilderpeople
Hell or High Water
Arrival
Manchester by the Sea
The Nice Guys
The Invitation
The Handmaiden
Zootopia
Everybody Wants Some
Fences
Hacksaw Ridge
The Lobster
Loving
That a W I D E range of genres too, animated, thriller, comedy - some indie horror, dark incredibly offbeat satire, engaging thoughtful sci-fi, beautiful heart wrenching drama, really smart funny original "kids" animation (with powerful adult observations) - you name it, there was probably a film just in the last year that would satisfy every film lover.
Last edited:
No, but - with the passing of time, the worship of profit (to the exclusion of art and the craft of telling a story), and the development of CGI which can serve as a spectacular distraction (rather than focussing on proper, skilled, serious acting, genuine script writing, and finding good stories to tell), the complacent and intellectually lazy temptation to re-make what has been told before (because it worked) seems to have become ever more pronounced in Hollywood.
I disagree with the sentiment, One major factor is the high cost of making those films and then add in the marketing. It costs studios 100s of millions of dollars, a single film flop can put any studio in dire straights. With risks that high, its understandable that many studios are rather adverse to the risks and return to tried and true franchises.
Also factor in viewing habits and the typical consumer seems to be more willing to see something tried and true then something that's completely different and unheard of.
[doublepost=1495109680][/doublepost]Also lets be clear, Studios make movies to make money, they don't do it out of some sort of artistic altruistic behavior. They are looking to make money and there's nothing wrong with that.
Yes I will. Tom Cruise movies are usually quite well produced, and enjoyable. Most of them aren't perfect, but they tend to be better than the average movies out of Hollywood. And he's quite a good actor on top.
I saw the trailer and it doesn't feel like a remake..the original was great when it came out but the story is cheesy if you watch again today.
I rarely get to the theater, but that's why I have subscriptions to HBO and Starz. I will wait the year, but definitely looking forward to seeing this movie.
But if they focussed on telling a good story, recruiting actors with acting skills (and not just the proverbially pretty), and wrote good scripts (the late Carrie Fisher excelled at this), they might not need to spend so much on either special effects of marketing.
I accept that they exist to make a product, but it wild be nice if they product were not as derivative, imitative, and entirely lacking in originality as so many movies are nowadays.
Its just not CG that is driving up the costs and marketing is something that cannot be avoided if you want people to know about your movie.
I will say also Hollywood has an incredible depth of actors and writers. I don't think they need to recruit better actors because they have some great ones now.
So you didn't see the 1999 Mummy movie (with Brendan Fraser) because the 1932 movie was the original
I'll probably go see it, So far the trailers look good and I like some of the changes they seemed to have made in the movie. I may wait until it hits TV, by way of on demand, or netflix as the cost of movie tickets is prohibitively high
I agree that many of the movies we watched are remakes and not the original. To me though, I consider the first time I see a movie to be the original and any subsequent movies are remakes. Most movies made in 1932 are no longer shown in any format so I don't feel hypocritical when I feel that the 1999 Mummy was the original.
Last movie I went to had almost 25 minutes of trailers before the movie and they were all remakes / super hero stories / continuations of previous movies. How many remakes of "Spiderman" does there need to be ?
I agree 100%. Any business should do what they think is best. It's only my opinion I'm stating when I say that I don't like all the remakes so they will not be getting my money.
Something has changed and its a good change. Studios seem to focus in an healthy way on trailers. Always a staple of their marketing push but now it seems its almost an industry unto itself, and in many cases trailors give away many of the plot twists found in movies. With a handful of exceptions I usually avoid seeing them, at least on YT. At the theater, I'm a captive observer so no avoiding it.
This is why I will be going to see it also. I like Tom Cruise as an actor and I like most of his movies. There are a few scenes in the trailers that were a little head scratching and eye rolling, but overall it looks entertaining and there is talk that this will be the first of the Monster Movies ala 1940-50's era style of monster movies.
Matinee FTW.So you didn't see the 1999 Mummy movie (with Brendan Fraser) because the 1932 movie was the original
I'll probably go see it, So far the trailers look good and I like some of the changes they seemed to have made in the movie. I may wait until it hits TV, by way of on demand, or netflix as the cost of movie tickets is prohibitively high
My understanding is that the summer blockbusters are actually an important part of a studio's ability to continue to make original movies. You won't accidentally sink the company when funding a few risky movies, provided you also are releasing something the company can bank on that year.
In other words, the original movies that you like may only have been possible because lots of teenagers bought tickets to see Transformers.
In other words, the original movies that you like may only have been possible because lots of teenagers bought tickets to see Transformers.
Last edited:
Well, I suppose the fact that I don't much like Tom Cruise as an actor may also influence my stance on this.
Agreed. I can see super-hero, but remakes? No. Leave the originals in peace for at least 60 years.
