The Mummy : "The Original"

Gotta love all the whining about how this is more serious than "the original", this isn't a period piece like "the original", this doesn't have Brendan Fraser like "the original".

THE ORIGINAL came out in 1932, people. The 1999 film may as well be Batman Forever as far as the classic monsters are concerned (Van Helsing is the Batman & Robin of course). The sequels got worse and worse.

The ORIGINAL The Mummy was not a period piece. It was set in 1931 and it came out in 1932. The ORIGINAL The Mummy was not a goofball comedy knock-off of the Indiana Jones movies.

I don't give a flying fck about what "most people" are familiar with, whether or not "mainstream audiences" are familiar with the fact that the franchise is older than that 1999 film. Batman and Superman have been around since the late 30s, and all they had to do to get people reeling was take Superman's briefs away. Superheroes are treated with far more reverence than the classic monsters, and yet they're roughly the same age. Just because one genre got merchandised into oblivion over the years doesn't mean it deserves more respect, or that filmmakers need to be beholden to "how it's supposed to be" with superheroes but can toss everything else into the wind with the classic monsters.

I don't expect this shared monster universe to be as true to its sources as people expect modern superhero films to be, but given how poorly the classic monsters are treated in general, it's not hard to get a little closer, and if this film does that, I'm all for it.





Warning! The Monster is loose!

Thank you!! I'm glad someone finally said it. I think the trailer tease looks great. It actually felt like a horror film.

I am kinda interested in seeing this after the trailer and everything you said is true

Well said mate. I'd watch the 1932 over Brendan Fraser any day.

And since I'm seeing a bunch of dimwitted misogynist douchebags showing up, I'm going to put this here too.

1) "The Mummy" was never one character, so if the Mummy happens to be a woman, what's the big deal? They didn't do a gender-swap of Imhotep, this is a whole new character. Just like Kharis was when they did the sequel to the original film.

2) This is not the first time a cinematic Mummy has been a woman. There are numerous cinematic examples, most notably Blood From The Mummy's Tomb from Hammer Films.

3) There are many more literary examples from the Victorian period, which the original Mummy films draw on primarily. Most notable is the novel by Bram Stoker, The Jewel of Seven Stars, which was adapted to the film I just mentioned.

4) We've had how many years of vampire and werewolf women with no issue, but a mummy woman is a big deal? That's not just sexist, it's an amazing lack of awareness. Cognitive dissonance on a pretty large scale.







Warning! The Monster is loose!

I happen to be the odd man out, but I loved the Brendan Fraser Mummy Films, but I am willing to give this a chance. It looks really cool from the teaser I hope the trailer is well done. I could care less if its a female mummyits something new, and if anyone can pull this off i put my faith in Sofia Boutella. The only other thing I want is for it to be rated R. I want my blood, guts, and goreI want a real horror movie. Not the pg-13 crap they keep churning out.

You're fighting the good fight, pal!

In 1932 they didn't create franchises. They just made movies.

That being said, a teaser trailer showing cheap CGI of a woman who can multiply her eyes into four irises instead of two is not very intimidating to me.

Also, the marketing for this film is already starting on the wrong foot, by making it look like the Brenden Fraser movie, even going so far as to have the title in the poster have the little light pulse underneath the middle M in the word "Mummy".

That being said, it does have a few pluses on its side. One of the writers of this movie wrote THE USUAL SUSPECTS, and that's no small feat of writing. The other wrote DOCTOR STRANGE, and that's pretty respectable too judging by that movie's reception.

The director only has one film under his belt, PEOPLE LIKE US, so that's a bit of a concern, but at least it seems to have received marginally positive reviews.

Overall, however, if you really want people to get excited about this film, you should not be trying to market it as a remake if it's not SUPPOSED to be a remake, and so far that seems to be the plan.

We'll just have to wait and see. I have to say, though, the overused CGI does not impress me in the slightest. A computer graphics trick that anyone can do does not strike me as intimidating or interesting, to be honest.

My thoughts: https://xanderpayne.blogspot.com
My book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01G6OI7HG

You didn't come here to make the choice, you're here to understand why you made it.

Well said!

Frustrating how many people either don't know or don't care about any of the movies that came out before they were born.

Universal's first MUMMY is very good and very atmospheric, but I personally prefer Hammer's version from 1959.

To me, the 1999 version is awful not a horror or suspense movie at all but rather a bad INDIANA JONES knock-off, so I hope the Cruise film is closer in spirit to Hammer's vision of the story than the godawful 1999 one.

Unfortunately it lools like it will be closer to the 1999 version..

even equiped with a shovel and you couldn't dig this

Great post.

To play devil's advocate, there are not nearly as many mainstream mummy based movies as ones are with vampires or werewolves, and the last mainstream mummy movie came out in 2008 and was the second sequel to the 1999 film with Brendan Fraser. The 1999 version is not a classic of American cinema, but its like ratio is stronger than the dislike ratio and it must be fresh in people's minds given that its played on TV every once in a while on major networks. So obviously that version is going to be talked about in relation to this, same with the original Karloff version but given that this new film hasn't anything to do with either of them outside of the title I think once in comes out people will look at it as its own thing.

I am enthusiastic about this version, I actually love both the Karloff movie and the 1999 Brendan Fraser film - For an Indiana Jones knock-off it certainly was a better Indy flick than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, a legitimate follow up, turned out to be. I never got creeped out by it like the Karloff film but some of the imagery was certainly pretty dark at times.

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

OP is just the worst kind of person, seriously

Of course, knowing what I'm talking about is so terrible when I'm surrounded by people who are having over-emotional reactions to something they have total ignorance of.

Fck off.





Warning! The Monster is loose!

FYI, "I know you are but what am I" does not work after you hit puberty.

Jesus Christ, I agree with this
I came to this board purely because I saw the trailer on Facebook and every single comment was asking 'why are they remaking it without Brendan Fraser?', or 'you can't just ignore Brendan Fraser!', or 'where's Rick O'Connell?'
I'm a huge fan of the classic Universal Monster movies, and I am so sick of people talking about 'the original' when they mean the 90s versions
Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the first two Brendan Fraser movies, but I still prefer the original over them (and by the by, I really liked Van Helsing too)

---

I don't give a flying fck about what "most people" are familiar with, whether or not "mainstream audiences" are familiar with the fact that the franchise is older than that 1999 film. Batman and Superman have been around since the late 30s, and all they had to do to get people reeling was take Superman's briefs away. Superheroes are treated with far more reverence than the classic monsters, and yet they're roughly the same age. Just because one genre got merchandised into oblivion over the years doesn't mean it deserves more respect, or that filmmakers need to be beholden to "how it's supposed to be" with superheroes but can toss everything else into the wind with the classic monsters.

---

Your point over here makes me want to bring up another thought, and I might be going slightly off topic here. I think the respect given to Superhero films by modern audiences is great, but it can also feel at times a bit hypocritical. What I mean is, we're getting two monster franchises (both the Universal Monsters universe and the Kaiju universe from Legendary, monster fans everywhere are getting their due) and mainstream audiences seem to decide monsters in general are cheesy and not serious or mature. But when you really think about it, if we want to break it down, are the Universal Monster characters any less or any more cheesy than say Spiderman or the Hulk? I personally don't find any of these characters to be cheesy, but if an audience member thinks one deserves more respect than the other for that sake, then it makes no sense to me. Its sort of like audiences can only respect and accept one bit of fantasy and then everything else gets tossed aside as if its childish. I'm not sure if I'm making this point correctly.

It's totally hypocritical. Think about the visuals, for instance. The classic monsters have a pretty iconic appearance, right? But they're always discarded. Even Universal discards them willy nilly, no big deal. Meanwhile with superheroes, not only is there always an attempt to faithfully reproduce their costumes, but outrage over peculiar changes tends to always be reversed later on. People didn't care for Spider-Man's look in The Amazing Spider-Man, the way it got weird with the forms and shapes of his suit. So for the second one, they basically just went back to the Sam Raimi look with a few tweaks here and there.

Imagine how mad people would be if Superman never had his cape, his blue suit, and his red S shield. Imagine if he just wore street clothes that sort of had that red/blue/yellow scheme. Fans would be rioting over that, and you can be damn well sure the studio would hear that and make adjustments for the sequel. As it is people are still constantly griping that he doesn't have the red briefs anymore.

Meanwhile, when was the last time Dracula or Frankenstein looked like, wellwhat people expect them to look like? Monster Squad is the last major live-action film I can recall that did that, and that was a non-Universal film that came out about thirty years ago!

There are only a few cases where superheroes don't get that kind of respect visually. The X-Men films over at Fox generally don't care about their comic book appearances, but that's Fox for you. At Marvel, women generally don't get to wear much more than a black jumpsuit. Scarlet Witch got a red coat, big whoop, and Gamora has green skin, but otherwise the women are generally rather bland compared to the men. DC doesn't have that problem. Ironically the one DC woman everyone expected to wear a jumpsuit, Harley Quinn, ended up insomething else.

Despite those examples, costume designers bend over backwards to bring superhero costumes to life, with Marvel even going so far as to give Spidey mechanical lenses so his eyes can be animated like they seem to be in the comics! That level of visual fidelity is never applied to the classic monsters anymore.





Warning! The Monster is loose!

---

The ORIGINAL The Mummy was not a period piece. It was set in 1931 and it came out in 1932.

---

By today's standards that is a period piece. The Sommers series was set around the same time, and three of the four Hammer entries are set in the early twentieth century. That time in history has become a large part of mummy mythos, not in any small part to "Tutmania" which was largely responsible for the Karloff movie.

The ambiguous atmosphere was a big part of the old horror movies; gypsies, run-down castles, horse-drawn carts, foggy streets, dusty tombs, explorers in pith helmets, blind hermits, torch-carrying mobs, and villagers in lederhosen celebrating the new wine.

The main difference between depictions of monsters and superheroes comes from the fact that the majority of monsters are in the public domain while superheroes are copyrighted. Anyone can make a movie about Frankenstein, Dracula, Jekyll and Hyde, a mummy, or werewolf.

After watching Amazing Spider-Man 2, Batman Vs. Superman, and Fantastic Four (reluctantly), I wouldn't say superheroes are treated with that much reverence.

By today's standards, Superman: The Movie is a period piece. You going to complain that the DC movies aren't set in the late 1970s?

I'm fully familiar with Gothic Horror, buddy. I don't need an education on the genre or how it works. But it is annoying how this common misconception has shown up that because the films FROM the 30s and 40s were usually SET IN the 30s and 40s, that somehow means they are period pieces.

And buddy, that new Fantastic Four was ten times more faithful to its source material than, say, I, Frankenstein was.





Warning! The Monster is loose!

---

And buddy, that new Fantastic Four was ten times more faithful to its source material than, say, I, Frankenstein was.

---

But a far, far bigger train wreck than I, Frankenstein was at the end of the day.

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

I disagree. It's just that Fant4stic was held to a higher standard. Everyone expected I, Frankenstein to be lame. Even people who hope for decent Frankenstein movies.





Warning! The Monster is loose!

Both were pretty bad, but I, Frankenstein had some interesting imagery here and there that sort of made me recall Disney's Gargoyles so there's that while Fan4stic was visually flat even in its most FX heavy sequences. But Ill give you points on the expectations thing - I,F did indeed look pretty lame in its earliest marketing, people were divided on F4 till things began looking more sour the more details were released about its production.

COOKIES AND MILK!-Ed

It was the exploration in Egypt and subsequent Tutmania in the early third of the twentieth century that has made that period in history especially relevant to mummy movies. Superman is not similarly rooted, the time in history is not relevant in the `78 film, and there hasn't been one Superman movie deliberately set in the past. Dick Tracy, The Shadow, and The Phantom had movies set in the past because it was when they were the most relevant. What was the last good mummy movie to be set in contemporary times? Bubba Ho-Tep?

---

it is annoying how this common misconception has shown up that because the films FROM the 30s and 40s were usually SET IN the 30s and 40s, that somehow means they are period pieces.

---

Keep in mind, I said "by today's standards." H.G. Wells referred to The War of the Worlds as a period piece later in life, because the story as he wrote it was very much a piece of its time. I think the same could be said for The Mummy, which was intended to capitalize on the interest in the Curse of the Pharaohs and all things Egyptian.

What world of difference is there between Dick Tracy, the Shadow, andBatman? Batman was exactly the same sort of pulp crime fighter. Why not set all his movies in the 30s and 40s?

See, you keep referring to the exploration in Egypt, Tutmania, etc, as reasons why a Mummy film wouldn't work. Except, Gojira was very much a response to the atomic bombing of Japan at the end of WW2. But Godzilla was free to stomp his way into modernity.

You know what the difference is here, truly? It's not a matter of relevance to the historical period in which these stories were told, not at all. It 's a matter of merchandising. It's a matter of franchising. Batman, Superman, Godzilla, these were cultural juggernauts. Why? Because there's toys and hats and shirts and mugs and, oh, they've made how many different versions of them over the years to be consumed by the public?

Let's see, Godzilla is at twenty-nine Japanese films plus two American films with another one on the way and a Japanese anime film in development. There have been two animated series. He's featured in some capacity in almost fifty video games. There have been numerous toy lines, both in the United States and in Japan. Godzilla was a Marvel Comics character for a brief time, then there were comics published at Dark Horse for a little while, and currently there are comics published by IDW Publishing. Need I go on?

Batman and Superman, meanwhile, have had continuous comics publications since they were created, across multiple titles. They've featured in numerous video games. Batman has had seven animated series on television over the years between 1977 and 2013, and that's not counting numerous appearances in the series' of other characters. Batman's been in two serials, ten theatrical films plus an additional sixteen direct-to-video animated films, and again this is not counting appearances in ensemble works. Superman, meanwhile, has had several radio shows between the 1940s and 2008. He's had two 15-chapter serials, plus eight live action films, a very popular set of seventeen theatrical cartoon shorts courtesy of Fleischer Studios in the 1940s, along with eight animated films that were direct-to-video. Superman has also headlined four live-action TV series, and five animated TV series. Again, not mentioning numerous appearances in ensemble works.

How many animated TV shows has the Mummy had? How many toy lines? How many T-shirts do you think are sold with the various characters from the Mummy films? How many comic books? How long did any of them run? How prevalent was the Mummy as a major franchise?

Everyone likes to say that these classic monster characters have wider circulation because they're public domain, but do they really?

No. They don't. THAT is why people will groan when the Green Hornet gets another movie even though that franchise has only had a single feature film to its name, but if you can bank on a character who has become a popular brand like Batman and Superman, or even just slap a shiny brand label like "Marvel Studios" on your film no matter what character it is or how unknown they are, then people will take your product seriously.

It's not about how relevant to the period these characters are. The long and short of it is, it's a popularity contest. Audiences are kinder to the stories they live with than they are to the ones that only visit on rare occasions.






Warning! The Monster is loose!

---

Gojira was very much a response to the atomic bombing of Japan at the end of WW2. But Godzilla was free to stomp his way into modernity.

---

Godzilla was a response to the Beast from 20,000 Fathoms. Pseudo-dinosaur awakened by hydrogen bomb tests at sea rampages through a city, and contaminates the area. The beast was even supposed to snort fire (still depicted in the poster). Godzilla's origins weren't even relevant after the first movie, where he'd fight one random giant monster after another.

I don't know why you put such importance on mugs and t-shirts (is that how importance is measured?), but mummies have been entrenched in popular culture long before there were superheroes, and used to sell products; ever hear of King Tut Lemons? Universal hasn't been shy about slapping the Mummy's image on everything they can from Halloween masks to Hot Wheels and bubble bath (and yes, mugs and t-shirts too).

---

How many animated TV shows has the Mummy had?

---

There were at least three cartoons about mummies; Mummies Alive!, Tutenstein, and The Mummy: The Animated Series; not to mention appearances on Scooby Doo, Johnny Quest, Ducktales, Thundercats, Toonsylvania, etc

---

How many toy lines?

---

That could take some time; Marx, Mego, Remco, Royal Magic, Arco, Imperial, Uncle Milton Industries, Hasbro, Kenner, McFarlane, Sideshow, Jakks Pacific, ReAction, and Diamond Select all made action figures. Universal even had a tie-in with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles line resulting in a Mummy Raphael. There have also been model kits, board games, puzzles, paint by numbers, monster balls, bobble heads, wind-up toys, trading cards, pogs, a handheld video game by Tiger, and toy cars by Hot Wheels and Johnny Lightning with the Mummy's likeness.

---

How many T-shirts do you think are sold with the various characters from the Mummy films?

---

Because kids would want a t-shirt of Frank Manners or George Zucco? Aside from the fact the side characters in these movies aren't much of a draw, there is the complicated legal aspect of using the likeness of actors who've been dead for several decades. That problem doesn't exist with comic characters.

---

How many comic books?

---

I didn't say anything about merchandising in my earlier posts, so I don't know why you keep banging that drum, but N'Kantu, The Living Mummy and a twelve issue adaption of Anne Rice's The Mummy (or Ramses the Damned) come to mind. Comic books aren't exactly the home medium of classic monsters, so it'd be silly to compare their success to comic book characters by that.

---

THAT is why people will groan when the Green Hornet gets another movie even though that franchise has only had a single feature film to its name

---

Or maybe because the last movie left a bad taste in people's mouths?

---

Audiences are kinder to the stories they live with than they are to the ones that only visit on rare occasions.

---

Actually, it seems they demand more from the ones they're familiar with, and are unhappy when they don't get what they're used to. You said it yourself in regards to changing Superman's costume. Not to mention the casting of Amy Adams as Lois, Laurence Fishburne as Perry White, what's-his-name as Lex Luthor, Ben Affleck as Batman, Doomsday's ridiculous new origin, Pa Kent's attitude about letting people die, Superman behaving against type, lack of x-ray vision, etc the fans were not kind at all.

I love the original - and own a DVD copy, and an iTunes copy. (I love the old BW horrors).

I also loved the 1999 Mummy. It was fun, with just enough camp but not over the top. Like say Van Helsing, or the last Dracula flick.

Personally I don't care if the Mummy is female or male. I don't care if it has a little camp or is horror filled. I just want it to have a good story (script/plot), acting, and special effect that enhance the story but don't become the story.

People getting upset over what gender the movie takes place in are like the ones getting upset over the last Magnificent 7 due to race changes.

well said

well said