Current Events > I kinda wish they had made a 4th Brendan Fraser Mummy instead of what we got

(+) Yeah! (+)

I haven't even seen the new mummy, but the 4th one for Brendan Fraser would have taken place in Peru. that would have been cool to see. Instead we just get another Egyptian. at least it's a hot female this time I guess

At least Brendan's career was resurrected by the hatred towards to tom cruise reboot
---

Nah, the third one was hot garbage.
---

It flopped anyway. Probably won't be another one
---

YourDrunkFather posted...

It flopped anyway. Probably won't be another one

the Universal Monster Universe will never get started at this rate. everytime they start it, the movie flops and then they declare the flopped movie not part of the universe.

Zikten posted...

I haven't even seen the new mummy, but the 4th one for Brendan Fraser would have taken place in Peru. that would have been cool to see. Instead we just get another Egyptian. at least it's a hot female this time I guess

Agreed - the third one was a bit meh because of the missing characters actors from the first two, but I would love to see a fourth with his trademark sardonic wit.

"Time to go!"

Plus Oded Fehr was really well cast as Ardeth

this is the first time i have even heard about there being a third one
---

yusiko posted...

this is the first time i have even heard about there being a third one

It came out like 10 years ago, but I never actually saw it til today. just finished it a little while ago. it was not as good as the other 2. But the premise they set up for the next one sounded interesting. oh well

oh and the third one is set in China. forget to mention that. at the end of the movie they set up 4 by having a main character leaving in a taxi with a jewel he got during the movie and talking about getting somewhere they don't have mummies. then he says "goodbye China, hello Peru......"

and as the taxi drives off, it says on the screen "Soon after, mummies were discovered in Peru"

10 reasons why Hollywood won't cast Brendan Fraser anymore.
---

Zikten posted...

the Universal Monster Universe will never get started at this rate.

Lets be honest. It wasn't going to be any good anyways.
---

I find it hilarious that Brendan Frasier is the standard of comparison when his adaptation was a staunch departure from the original.

Mummy '32 = Dracula in the Desert
Mummy '99 = Indiana Jones as Played by Brendan Frasier

If I'm being honest with myself, the first Brendan Frasier Mummy was decent. But that still doesn't change what a staunch departure it was from the source material. If the new movie is an insult, it's not an insult to Brendan Frasier's interpretation because that was an offbeat self-aware interpretation rather than a straight update. It might be the interpretation that's best known with 90s kids and Millennials, but that doesn't change that it's a completely different story tied together by a couple of character names.

To be fair, it probably would have been in Universal's best interest to have made this the fourth film in the Mummy series. Instead of creating a joint universe from scratch, they would've been able to have rightfully claimed that theirs dated back to 1999.

Nah. The new Mummy should have been a horror movie that was good. I have the impression it's neither of those things.
---

Darmik posted...

Nah. The new Mummy should have been a horror movie that was good. I have the impression it's neither of those things.

I agree with the tone, but not the choice of monster. If you're starting a joint universe from scratch, the Mummy isn't the one to begin with. Actually, now that I think about it, it only begged the comparison to the Brendan Frasier films because that's what's most recent in audience's minds. Had they done Frankenstein first and the Wolf Man second, nobody would have expected The Mummy to be anything like the Frasier movies.

Skye Reynolds posted...

Darmik posted...

Nah. The new Mummy should have been a horror movie that was good. I have the impression it's neither of those things.

I agree with the tone, but not the choice of monster. If you're starting a joint universe from scratch, the Mummy isn't the one to begin with. Actually, now that I think about it, it only begged the comparison to the Brendan Frasier films because that's what's most recent in audience's minds. Had they done Frankenstein first and the Wolf Man second, nobody would have expected The Mummy to be anything like the Frasier movies.

That makes sense. Dracula would have worked as a launching pad too. There hasn't really been a traditional creepy Dracula for a long time. Just superhero shit.
---

I mean, I don't care for the direction that Universal seems to want to take.

Dracula is sexy and tragic.
Van Helsing is sexy and immortal. (Essentially a good Dracula.)
Monsters jump out at you, but then act silly or tongue in cheek in the same scene.

If Universal wants monsters to be what they were in the Brendan Frasier trilogy or the Van Helsing movie with Hugh Jackman, than they're better off to simply make sequels to those films and join them together. It's not like every film in the Marvel universe has been a hit.

I'm just thinking in terms of practicality. If that's the direction they want to take, they're better off to build upon what they've previously created rather than start from scratch and rebuild the same house they built 13 to 19 years ago.

Darmik posted...

That makes sense. Dracula would have worked as a launching pad too. There hasn't really been a traditional creepy Dracula for a long time. Just superhero shit.

Oh, man. I know.

I am so tired of sexy Dracula. I'm fine with them having a tragic vampire, but I personally would hold off on introducing Dracula himself and I'd make him a thoroughly evil and unsympathetic character. I'm not against Dracula looking good, but I want the sense of menace back. I don't want the sad eyed puppy dog who happens to kill people after dark. Again, we can have that character. He just shouldn't be Dracula.

Skye Reynolds posted...

I am so tired of sexy Dracula. I'm fine with them having a tragic vampire, but I personally would hold off on introducing Dracula himself and I'd make him a thoroughly evil and unsympathetic character.

Dracula would be good because presumably his story would be earliest in the timeline but he'd still be in the shadows for the movies set later on.

Oh well. Not like they'll ever get anything close to that.
---

Skye Reynolds posted...

I mean, I don't care for the direction that Universal seems to want to take.

Dracula is sexy and tragic.
Van Helsing is sexy and immortal. (Essentially a good Dracula.)
Monsters jump out at you, but then act silly or tongue in cheek in the same scene.

If Universal wants monsters to be what they were in the Brendan Frasier trilogy or the Van Helsing movie with Hugh Jackman, than they're better off to simply make sequels to those films and join them together. It's not like every film in the Marvel universe has been a hit.

I'm just thinking in terms of practicality. If that's the direction they want to take, they're better off to build upon what they've previously created rather than start from scratch and rebuild the same house they built 13 to 19 years ago.

Even though it was more than a decade ago, I would totally go for a Van Helsing 2 - they even build upon an "evil" Dracula and made him a true antagonist.

what I want to see if they ever succeed in the universe building is after all the monsters get their solo movies, they make a Van Helsing movie that is about him hunting down and killing each monster

Ruvan22 posted...

Even though it was more than a decade ago, I would totally go for a Van Helsing 2 - they even build upon an "evil" Dracula and made him a true antagonist.

I'm not a fan of that movie, but I definitely think that Universal could have made a sequel which connected it to the Mummy series. Any monster that died in Van Helsing was either expendable or known for coming back from the dead. If Universal wanted the joint series to be tongue and cheek, connecting Van Helsing and the Mummy franchise probably would have been the path to have taken.