|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Jun 7, 2017 16:24:32 GMT
|
|
Savager
Junior Member
Posts: 430 
Likes: 508
|
Post by Savager on Jun 7, 2017 16:57:41 GMT
merc sinks.
|
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jun 7, 2017 17:00:53 GMT
"I'm surprised!"
Said no one ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbystarks on Jun 7, 2017 17:13:10 GMT
He was actually quite against this movie if I recall. |
|
|
|
Post by bobbystarks on Jun 7, 2017 17:14:08 GMT
What the fuck is universal thinking? This whole Dark Universe thing is a mess and I really don't think many people actually care about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Jun 7, 2017 18:00:24 GMT
No surprises there.
|
|
|
|
Post by pendragon on Jun 7, 2017 18:37:27 GMT
First King Arthur and now this. Maybe don't talk about sequels before you know if the first film is actually good.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Jun 7, 2017 19:40:36 GMT
RIP to Universal's Dark Universe  |
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Jun 7, 2017 19:42:04 GMT
On a sidenote, the budget for The Mummy is relatively modest for a "big" summer film right? I remember reading it was just above 100 million . Should make plenty overseas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Jun 7, 2017 20:54:06 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 21:19:44 GMT
Too bad it's going to make so much $$ overseas, that it'll still be successful
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Jun 7, 2017 22:03:33 GMT
38/100 on MC. Yikes.
Mind-boggling to me that Universal actually went ahead with this Dark Universe thing. I'm aware that they must've been so starved for an(other) expanded franchise they didn't care what property they used to jump-start it, but even then it ought to have been evident to them that audiences aren't into mummies, Dracula and Frankenstein anymore, try as they might to Marvel-ize them. Cruise being a draw will soften the blow here, but that most likely won't be the case going forward.
Mike was absolutely right when he suggested they would be better off setting this Dark Universe up as a horror series with October releases in the $30 million range, but even that might've been too much of a gamble, given how distant these properties are from what audiences flock to to get their horror fix nowadays (like The Conjuring). Just look at how Crimson Peak, Dracula Untold and The Wolfman did.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jun 8, 2017 3:48:18 GMT
Mike was absolutely right when he suggested they would be better off setting this Dark Universe up as a horror series with October releases in the $30 million range, but even that might've been too much of a gamble, given how distant these properties are from what audiences flock to to get their horror fix nowadays (like The Conjuring). Just look at how Crimson Peak, Dracula Untold and The Wolfman did. Aha, thanks for the shout-out. I think it's worth noting that Dracula Untold and The Wolfman would have been modest financial successes if the budgets were in the $30 million range instead of $70 million and $150 million (wait, the 2010 Wolfman really cost that much?), respectively. I think these franchises could have a place in the current horror market, but it certainly isn't solid enough to warrant these ridiculous budgets, especially not when you can see these movies are dogshit from a mile away. |
|
CookiesNCream
Badass
So what else is new?
Posts: 1,064 
Likes: 478
|
Post by CookiesNCream on Jun 10, 2017 5:35:21 GMT
Mike was absolutely right when he suggested they would be better off setting this Dark Universe up as a horror series with October releases in the $30 million range, but even that might've been too much of a gamble, given how distant these properties are from what audiences flock to to get their horror fix nowadays (like The Conjuring). Just look at how Crimson Peak, Dracula Untold and The Wolfman did. Aha, thanks for the shout-out. I think it's worth noting that Dracula Untold and The Wolfman would have been modest financial successes if the budgets were in the $30 million range instead of $70 million and $150 million (wait, the 2010 Wolfman really cost that much?), respectively. I think these franchises could have a place in the current horror market, but it certainly isn't solid enough to warrant these ridiculous budgets, especially not when you can see these movies are dogshit from a mile away. I had a feeling this movie would bomb from the moment I saw those ads. I'm not sure how this could look for Dark Universe now. |
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jun 11, 2017 4:49:55 GMT
38/100 on MC. Yikes. Mind-boggling to me that Universal actually went ahead with this Dark Universe thing. I'm aware that they must've been so starved for an(other) expanded franchise they didn't care what property they used to jump-start it, but even then it ought to have been evident to them that audiences aren't into mummies, Dracula and Frankenstein anymore, try as they might to Marvel-ize them. Cruise being a draw will soften the blow here, but that most likely won't be the case going forward. Mike was absolutely right when he suggested they would be better off setting this Dark Universe up as a horror series with October releases in the $30 million range, but even that might've been too much of a gamble, given how distant these properties are from what audiences flock to to get their horror fix nowadays (like The Conjuring). Just look at how Crimson Peak, Dracula Untold and The Wolfman did. Honestly I think it's less that audiences aren't into "old fashioned monsters", and more that they just haven't gotten the right people involved. I mean one of the biggest criticisms of The Mummy is that they try "too hard" to pack a lot of exposition and details into it just so they can set-up the dark universe. It's clear that the Universal executives aren't thinking this shit through. |
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Jun 11, 2017 16:05:39 GMT
Never understood that remake ambitions anyway. I mean I may gonna check out it anyway as I like Tom Cruise and adventures but yeah it looks like a mess.
|
|
