LogFAQs > #911109048

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, Database 4 ( 07.23.2018-12.31.2018 ), DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Remember when they wanted to make the Universal monster cinematic universe?
ParanoidObsessive 10/24/18 9:13:08 PM #17:	Mead posted... MICHALCOLE posted... I mean, it could have been cool they just chose a bad movie to start out with. Twice Two-and-a-half times, technically. Supposedly, for a while they were thinking about retroactively building off The Wolfman from 2010, making it an unofficial prequel that would lead into the other movies. Dikitain posted... Mummy was a solid first choice It kind of wasn't. Most people don't really give a shit about the character (which is barely a "character" at all), nor did it help that the Brendan Fraser version was recent enough and popular enough that it was going to hurt perception of the new film. Like, imagine if Disney decided to reboot the Pirates of the Caribbean movies next year, but they decided to make it a grittier version of Black Sails, and never mention Jack Sparrow at all. Yes, some people would absolutely love that, but the majority of people would either be confused, apathetic, or annoyed. That's more or less what The Mummy was, even before the piss-poor implementation. There were a LOT of better potential options (which is why they went with Dracula first, before they screwed that one up). Then factor in the ridiculous tightrope you're walking these days with "cultural appropriation" and "whitewashing" and other SJW buzzwords when you're dealing with Egypt or any number of classic horror tropes (good luck putting gypsies in Dracula or the Wolfman!), and you're kind of limited in what you can do with the concept anyway. The Mummy might actually be the worst possible option they had available. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:911109048] in Remember w... [t:77127950]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mead posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MICHALCOLE posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, it could have been cool they just chose a bad movie to start out with.</quote> Twice</quote> Two-and-a-half times, technically. Supposedly, for a while they were thinking about retroactively building off The Wolfman from 2010, making it an unofficial prequel that would lead into the other movies. <cite>Dikitain posted...</cite> <quote>Mummy was a solid first choice</quote> It kind of wasn't. Most people don't really give a shit about the character (which is barely a "character" at all), nor did it help that the Brendan Fraser version was recent enough and popular enough that it was going to hurt perception of the new film. Like, imagine if Disney decided to reboot the Pirates of the Caribbean movies next year, but they decided to make it a grittier version of Black Sails, and never mention Jack Sparrow at all. Yes, some people would absolutely love that, but the majority of people would either be confused, apathetic, or annoyed. That's more or less what The Mummy was, even before the piss-poor implementation. There were a LOT of better potential options (which is why they went with Dracula first, before they screwed that one up). Then factor in the ridiculous tightrope you're walking these days with "cultural appropriation" and "whitewashing" and other SJW buzzwords when you're dealing with Egypt or any number of classic horror tropes (good luck putting gypsies in Dracula or the Wolfman!), and you're kind of limited in what you can do with the concept anyway. The Mummy might actually be the worst possible option they had available. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1