Having trouble sleeping in the summer? Get Manta Sleep for 10% off with code FILMENTO. No Mummy required. tinyurl.com/2xphcvym Kong x Godzilla is next.
That's what Iron Man greatly did, you can watch that movie as a standalone. It's only with the post credit scene where you literally got confirmation that they're planning to do a cinematic universe.
1st rule of a cinematic universe: "You do NOT tell everyone that you're making a cinematic universe." 2nd rule of a cinematic universe: "You do NOT imitate the MCU."
Checks out. For me it’s cooler when movies and shows start coming together out of (seemingly) nowhere, instead of it being a whole explicit thing from the start.
I am happy that so far, the Monsterverse is just being itself, instead of trying to be Marvel. They have found their formula and (judging by the box-office) it's working for them.
To be fair imitating MCU success isn't bad on its own - what they do wrong is trying to achieve 10 years of build up in one or two movies But I 100% agree with 1st rule
I would watch the third Mummy movie multiple times over this one...and I hated that movie. I almost screamed in the theatre when, "the yak yaked," but somehow, this movie, makes that obnoxious joke palatable.
The shared universe should have been Tom Cruises as a modern day Van Helsing going from movie to movie fighting different monsters, with an Easter egg in each to the next antagonist.
A much better idea. I'd like to add the possibility to start out with two or three big actors together in movie one and splitting up to hunt the other monsters and having cameo moments.
Actually, I really like the "Van Helsing" movie with Hugh Jackman. Yes, I know, many people dislike it, but it´s far more better than this Mummy movie.
Oh, please after what happened to scp-1447, we need to address our issue of popping a new generation before our elected idiots hit that shiny red button labeled "DO NOT PRESS UNLESS DOOM".
Also, like... why is Dr. Jekyll the leader of the monster hunting organization and not Van Helsing? Like... he's literally the perfect character to play that role and they just... don't use him. I've been bothered by this since the movie came out because it's just so weird of a choice.
I’m actually surprised they didn’t try and bring in the characters from the 1999 Mummy movie. They didn’t have to be the main characters, but it would be fun to see them come in at the end to hint at a larger universe.
Because the arc and twist of Jekyll succumbing to his monstrous side is more exciting if he's the leader of the good guys, and Van Helsing can still be the audience surrogate and main character without being the leader.
The problem with the Mummy is that the movie is about Tom Cruise, not a Mummy. Give the mummy some depth, make him a character. Make him the anti-hero. In the end, I want to see the MUMMY team up with all the others, not Tom Cruise.
Yea, the general consensus seems to be that the concept itself is a horrible idea, yet I believe when it comes to anything, it's not about what you sell, it's about how you sell it. "Fishy" vs Ocean Essence "Fried" vs Crispy "Bubbles" vs Sparkling Still a pretty silly idea, I admit, but if done right, it coulda been dope. A collection of anti-hero monsters ripping "other bad guys who deserve it" to shreds.
I'll never stop crackig up at the fact that the first like, 40 seconds of that soundless trailer actually sounded quite effective, for the rest to just become meme heaven.
Yeah, I remember watching the trailer at the first time, I couldn't stop laughing when the girl make a weird noise after she said "NO!" And Tom Cruise is screaming "AHHH! AHHH!" Nonchalantly
I really love that the plan was to have a bunch of iconic, memorable monsters we all know...and then also Tom Cruise as Tom Cruise, just hanging out with the rest of them.
Just happens to run into them, and pretends to be a monster too, to not get killed. But then he can't find an opportunity to sneak out, so he has to keep pretending through the entire movie. And the disguise works too well, now everyone thinks he's a monster, so he's stuck forever.
This movie is like a medical student who tells everyone that he'll cure all diseases, but eventually gets expelled from the college after the 1st year because of poor studying
I'm really happy this video started with the scene where she says "...Those chains aren't for bringing it up...they're for holding it down.", and then Tom Cruise promptly uses a single bullet to make the chains do the exact opposite of what she just said. It's literally the stupidity of this film, summed up in one scene.
Come to think of it, why didn’t they just use the 1999 movie as the basis for this new universe? Have the O’Connells be the ones who founded this organization to fight the different monsters of this universe? I’m not the one who came up with this concept. I just agree that it’s a cool idea.
@@TF2Fan101 It is a much better idea. And I'd not have started the franchise with the mummy. But Dracula, Frankenstein and then Dr Jekyll. I'd have made Cruise Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Since it is basically what he is. Give Crowe the Invisible Man role since it is mostly voice acting and he was already starting to increase his girth. And he has a great voice and is a gifted actor. And get some really young actors involved in the other roles. Trying to turn monster movies into Transformers or Mission Impossible seemed lame.
I’ll die on this hill: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was a fun crossover movie. It was cool that the characters were from classic literature. Yeah there were flaws, but overall it’s a great way to spend a couple hours.
Same here. Loved the League. Not perfect but fun and memorable enough. Also Penny Dreadful gave a different spin on the monster universe that was pretty darn good. This classic monster universe could work with right execution.
Before Madame Web and Morbius there was The Mummy Movies so boring and badly made that hearing people trash them is way more entertaining than the movies themselves
In which they take the most interesting things imaginable (like seeing the future, vampires (both Dracula in Dracula Untold and Morbius), mummies, and Egyptian Mythology) and making them the most horrendous, boring, stale, and absolutely cliche things ever imaginable!
Honestly, I think the reason this universe failed was that it tried way too hard to be serious. Frankly, they should have taken influence from the 1999 Mummy movie and just make a fun movie with likable characters and fun action.
One way to sort out the mummy power would to make them require a ritual. The mummy can have greater power than any other monster, but only if they sacrifice a goat or something. Not only would this give it limits that Tom Cruise can outrun (Killer sand wall heading for you? Wait for the goat’s blood to run out!), but would also lead to a game of cat and mouse, where Tom Cruise outruns whatever curse the mummy has summoned, then turns around and runs after the mummy to stop them from casting another curse. Other monsters have more consistent powers, but the mummy has bursts of power that can send any monster for a loop.
The mummy should have been the movie 5, avengers 1 of this universe. The first global level threat of insane power in the mummy. The other monsters are usually threats that have much more personal stakes than the huge threat of the mummy.
You made an excellent point about the main character having agency to help move the plot along. In the 1999 movie, the first few minutes clearly shows Imhotep and Rick O'Connell's own personal motives in the introduction = agency. Whereas in the reboot...we just see Nick stumbling on the tomb without knowing his character, motive and purpose and they expect you to have some sort of connection to the character...
My biggest grievance with this movie is such a nitpicking one lol. They introduce Set into the movie that the mummy does a deal with and call him the god of death... which he isnt. Hes the god of deserts and chaos. Set would of still worked as a evil god but you can just tell they slapped death god onto him because it sounded cooler (even though the actual gods associated with death are not even that bad in egyptian mythology and are there to help the dead).
To me it just felt like if you couldnt even be bothered to get the easiest thing right that a person who is only knowledgable on egyptian mythology in an amature sense immediatly picks up that its wrong just shows how little you care for putting effort in. Like hell set has violence as one of his associated things its so easy to just use the actual things associated with him (hell the desert command scenes would make even more sense since he is the actual god of desserts)
What we liked with the avengers eventually teaming up was everybody had their own story with little breadcrumbs tying into everything. Not ham fisting their way to trying to make an avengers movie on the first try
Honestly the best way to have done a shared universe was with the Brendan Fraiser Mummy stuff, which was a nice blend of action adventure with some horror elements that definitely lent itself to some interesting world building that could have fit the other monsters like Dracula and Frankenstein.
Perfect opening scene, chains designed to hold the mummy down can be shot to bring it up, right after stating they are not designed to bring it up. How does this actually get written?
Crazy to think that Godzilla and King Kong have been able to pull off a successful cinematic universe where so many others fail like this one did. Speaking of Godzilla, could you cover Godzilla Minus One at least some time in the future? I know you haven't covered a foreign-language film on your channel before, but I believe Minus One is worth covering because it incorporates a lot of the advice you've shared in the past on how to create a great monster movie.
It is very easy, actually: they made a film about Godzilla, then made a movie about Kong, and only sprinkled some connecting tidbits on top. You end up with two solid movies and an audience eager to see them clash. What this Dark Universe (and the DCEU, for that matter) failed to realize is that you need _characters_ to build upon. That is why Marvel did five freaking movies before setting an ensemble piece. The Monsterverse did three, but leading to a somewhat smaller clash. And it worked. Someone said this Mummy film is not a movie. It's a trailer for the upcoming movies. And how can you be sure people want to see those movies, if the first one fails to excite the audience?
@@schwarzerritter5724 I'm afraid I don't know what you’re talking about. The MonsterVerse is the first time Godzilla has been in a cinematic universe. Godzilla didn't do this “twice before”.
@@TheKaijuKing54 Many of the monsters that appeared in Godzilla movies alongside Godzilla, like Rhodan and Mothra, starred in their own movies before and after. It was more of a cinematic universe than it is now.
@@TheKaijuKing54 Kinda, In the Showa Era, after the first two Godzilla movies, Toho made movies about other Kaiju, many of them would get later tied into the Showa Godzilla movies, Mothra (from Mothra (1961)) and Rodan (from Rodan (1956)) are probably the most famous of them, but not the only ones, as in Destroy all Monsters, which was originally planned to be the final Godzilla movie, Varan (from Varan (1958)), Manda (from Atragon (1963)), Gorosaurus (from King Kong Escapes (1967)) and Baragon (from Frankenstein vs Baragon (1965)) all appeared. The Showa Era of godzilla could as such be argued, to be a cinematic universe, if only a loose one.
I watch a movie which I don't care for, but when my wife asks me "Why didn't you like it?", I have two choices: 1: Answer her, "Don't know...just didn't" -or- 2: Run to Filmento and then give her a thorough unbiased detailed answer!
I think your trouble is that it's Tom Cruise. He's so famous that he doesn't play characters anymore- he's just Tom Cruise in another movie. We see RDJ as a big star now, but when Iron Man I came out, he was washed up and on his way out. Willing to take direction and play the role properly. That's what they needed for this.
I didn’t even know there was supposed to be a cinematic universe when I watched it. That in turn made me confused why Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde suddenly showed up later. The also barely even set one up to exist despite have their shield rip off and implying other monsters existed. Kind of felt like they didn’t want to foreshadow any particular thing yet because they made up the plan on the spot when they decided on a reboot.
I don't know what it is about this movie, but when Russel Crow shows up on screen I fall asleep. I have had this movie playing twice and both times, his character just knocks me out. That ending sponsored ad intro hits different!
If you wanna start a cinematic universe based on classic universal monsters you don't start with the mummy. Even aside from how bad the movie itself is that's not how you get a franchise off the ground you start with your biggest name to attract an audience and THEN you reveal you have more. Should have started with Dracula plain and simple
Well I would argue that main problem with Dark Universe would be tone, direction and connection. Are we going to do anti hero monsters route, or are we staying Dracula is bad guy? How are we connecting the stories? Is there one monster hunter ala van Helsing/Michaele or are we watching chronicle of stories tell by one overlooking story teller? This is not going to be easy task and there is rather miniscule room for maneuvering once the path is set. Oh and maybe making like at least first two or three movies good could give some boost to this universe of yours.
Funny thing is that they have, they just all tanked so hard that they have to keep restarting with another monster. See y'all in a few years when we get a Creature of the Black Lagoon movie starring Zendaya that will surely kick off "The Universal Monsters Universe (UMU)"
And make the movies actually good like with the first Iron man its not a cinematic masterpiece but still its a good movie, had some memorable with actuall development over the movies storyline
What I find most frustrating is that Brandon Frasier's mummy is actually perfect for launching a cinematic universe. Rick O Connor is perfect to carry a franchise, just thinking of Him and his gang facing off against Dracula already gives me goosebumps. Even if it was a sequel set years after events of first mummy, we could set up the story in a way that a older Rick O Conor can face off against Dracula instead of facing the mummy for the 100th time. We could easily make him the main recurring character who goes onto different monster adventure, with each connecting to each other until they face a big threat where all the movies come together. Sadly stupid studio decision will likely never make it happen. Which is fine because I love that mummy.
I disagree. Rick is not the only hero of the Mummy, there is also Evelyn and one doesn't work without the other in a very subtle way. Hell one of the many reasons why the third one was a flop is because there was a different actress and it ruined everything between the characters. If you bring Rick you have to bring Evelyn, and I don't think that Evelyn would necessary work very well outside of Egypt and outside of the mummy stuff. She is more action oriented in the second one but she is the brain first, and her knowing everything would make her completly overpowered.
@@mynameis7552 No Rick would work the third movie was bad due to repetition, bad writing and not knowing what to do with his character. Even the second movie had these issues. With a proper writer these things can be fixed. He was modeled after indiana jones and many 90s action hero along with Fraiser's charm he works really well. A lot better then Tom as an adventure hero. I think he's the only character that could be a glue in a cinematic universe, similar to captain america. You can have new characters in Dracula like Van Helsing, I mean hugh Jackman was already cast. Something tells me with proper writing they would have incredible chemistry but we'll never know. Evelyn could be a recurring character it depends on how the writers use her.
Take the first movie only and move it into the future, an alternate future kind of thing. (Maybe reuse a few clips from the sequels in the backstory explainer to show the changes.) Call it the Carnahan foundation, they're a library for this kind of thing with a sideline in containment and showing up armed when you need them. Jonathan's the nominal head/guy who schmoozes, Evelyn is the head researcher giving direction, kind of a Q role with some action scenes when something gets loose from containment, Rick's the 007 with a team of variously motivated characters, whoever of that secret society survived are their Egyptian counterparts they sometimes collaborate with. Start with a Dracula variant, post original Dracula someone has released him and the newest Harker and Mina are hunting down information from some shady rich Englishman who seems terrified and definitely isn't Jonathan C, they get holy water or whatever from him and try to terrorise him into helping, we think it's unsuccessful. Cut to the end and the victorious heroes have sealed Dracula and are about to be killed by the remaining minions as they try to escape. BANG, Rick and Evie's team show up and we get a big damn heroes scene after the new guys have had their own big moment, new guys get offered access, Jonathan is back at the plane smoothing things over with the authorities so the new team get away with whatever property destruction happens earlier in the film. There you go, we've set up a franchise in a way that doesn't detract from the individual films and given everybody and excuse to rewatch the first Mummy (1999), which honestly is pretty much all anyone wanted from this film.
Tom Cruise's character was named Tom Cruise. I'm in for sexy Mummy and Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll (actually give me a whole movie of that). They should've just played into the all villain theme of this universe. Or resurrect Van Helsing.
The biggest problem with cinematic universes that this movie is a perfect example of is shoving in too much stuff. Like if you want to make a cinematic universe you want like 2 separate elements from the universe instead of at least 5. Because if you want to make a universe you have to start out a little small in order for it not to feel desperate.
Saw this movie in theatres back in 2017, I had been particularly excited for it cause I loved the original Mummy and love cruise so what could go wrong? Easily the most painful movie watch I’ve had in a theatre, almost walked out numerous times but my buddy remained hopeful it would turn around till the end. When the credits rolled his disappointment was indescribable, it was just all around one the most unsatisfied a film has ever left me
It was really all spelled out for me in that GQ-style photoshoot Universal released to announce the Dark Universe bullshit. It was, to sum up, a bunch of random Hollywood celebrities standing around in a bland, empty room just there for star power--and the photos were taken separately and stitched together because they couldn't get everyone involved to actually be attached to each other, just like in the movie(s). Truly prophetic.
Same. I think it's a mixture of both. I remember the Director of Kingsman (Which is an awesome movie) saying that the moment he saw how acrobatic and flexible she was (being a trained gymnast or dancer I think), he knew she'd be perfect for the gal with the leg knives, which admittedly she was great doing all them stunts but to be front and center in a movie I don't think she's a strong performer.
2003's "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" kind of fell into the same trap. It had a cool concept but they had trouble with plot and character cohesion.
I really, really wanted Dark Universe to exist successfully, like a niche series where you see Dracula from Dracula Untold meeting with this secret society to play that "holy game" with his master etc.
It's kind of mindnumbing how little Dark Universe even understood its own premise. It was a horror movie franchise. They should have made horror movies. The "society" should have only existed in a post-credit scene in which they appear during "cleanup", probably tying into the "monster is still alive" shock revelation in the end. I'd still like to see this honestly attempted.
That photo of all the cebrities promoting the Dark Universe always gets a laugh out of me for how slapped together it looks, like why is Russel Crowe's hand positioned so awkwardly? It looks like it supposed to resting on something, like maybe the chair Javier Bardem is sitting on?
Honestly, even the Sonic Cinematic Universe that is coming is very promising and ticks all of the same checkmarks in this video. Each character, (even some of the human characters) are interesting, unique, and make us want to see how they will interact. For the third Sonic movie, I'm pretty sure everyone is excited to see how Sonic, the kind, light-hearted, goofball will interact with Shadow, the stoic, dead serious and traumatized Ultimate Lifeform will interact. And there are so many more character interactions that I'm eager for. The concepts are amazing too. With these alien creatures each having different unique abilites, and with Dr. Eggman being a large threat and the chaos emeralds. There are so many things that can be done now. And lastly, the connective tissue is there. Like, we have the concept of Aliens and other planets being teased but they don't become the main focus. But they can provide enough to connect this Universe into something larger.
I think that if Dr. Jekyll was the main character. You can get those different interesting interactions and the problems he’d have with having the monster within. I loved the IDEA of the monster verse but it’s a shame it was fumbled so poorly
In retrospect, hiring the same story writer who put one too many Cinimatic Universe material in the amazing spider man 2 was not Universal's smartest moves. (I do like TASM2 tho but still)
The universe NEVER needed rebooting from the last time…they should have KEPT going with Brandon Frazier and crew (have the kids do all of the adventuring while Mom and Dad play the guy in the chair) but NOOOOOO!!!
They should've released a Mummy prequel told from her POV, entirely set in Antiquity. Have us feel for her before she irredeemably descends into villainy. Then release the movie we got starring a relative unknown who gets possessed by Seth so the world is inching closer to annihilation forcing Jekyll to recruit the likes of Invisible Man, Frankenstein, Hellsing and even Dracula (who could be contained with a Suicide Squad-esque device in his neck or a cursed item controlling him).
It's crazy that this movie was even worse than the previous failed attempt (the Dracula untold). Like, comparing with the DCEU, at least Man of Steel was better than Green Lantern.
I remember walking into this movie back in June 2017 knowing it would be a bad movie, and then I was still utterly fascinated by how bad it really was for several months.
One example of a good conected multeverse is of tho series that DIDN'T start as such. Godzilla and Transformers (the rebooted one). They first set up the universe, ergo, make a good movie to begin with, and then they didn't conect them with anything, they expanded the universe in a natural way. And while I have my doubts about the Transformers CU, the fact they focused on a good fundation, makes it far more succesful than most CUs which try to start at 100%.
the MCU partially worked as well as it did (before Disney tried milking the money cow until it died) is that there were 70+ years of comic source material to draw from. Characters were super distinct in both individual issues and group issues. Some stories didn't work, but then that comic run was replaced with a story that worked better. MCU writers could cherry pick the very best stories to work on-screen to showcase the heroes that fit for their specific story. Individual movies stood on their own as individual comic stories played out in-full. The team line-up was small enough that everyone felt important and relevant (except Hawkeye, but whatever). Comparatively, a bunch of monster movies based on a mix of 19th century novels (usually about deeper and more complex themes now boiled down to "isn't that monster spooky"), or based on urban legends just don't have the same strength of characters, especially the bland, interchangeable protagonists who mostly exist to be audience stand-ins to show off how spooky the antagonist is.
It's possible to overshadow the movie with introducing a universe. Just keep it until the last moment. Let the big power show up at the last moment, after the hero already won, and take charge then. Of course, it's better if they are evil, or at least ambiguous, because rising the stakes for the sequel is generally a good idea. Maybe best if their intentions are unknown, because that adds mystery too. Or they show up before the boss fight, and suddenly the hero and the villain find themselves on the same side. They have to achieve some small victory, to give the movie a satisfying ending. But also unlock a much bigger danger to give reason for the rest of the movies to exist. If you want cool character interactions, forcing a hero and a villain to work together is an excellent recipe. Has been done many times, but not overdone yet, and it's always cool.
Sakamoto days is a manga thats getting an anime adaptation and it does a really good job at the idea of Equal but different because all the assassins have complete different mean on how they fight and it makes every encounter feel fresh seeing how they will combat each other
The biggest issue with the Dark Universe, in my opinion, is they forgot the most important element of cinematic universes: make movies people want to see more of. Rather than making a good Mummy movie, the Dark Universe was more interested in making a good set-up for their universe. ALL of the problems Filmento mentions are valid, but if audiences connected with the movie and left saying "wow, I want to see more of that," that is all they needed to make a cinematic universe. Instead, the Dark Universe banked on star power, which I don't think is as big of a draw anymore as it was previously, and thinking that announcing a ton of projects would draw people in. The idea being that even if someone wasn't super invested in a Tom Cruise-led Mummy movie, they would stick it out for the set-up of a Javier Bardem Frankenstein movie, or a Russell Crowe Dr Jekyll movie. This is a point the MCU EVENTUALLY got to, though even that isn't really the case as much as it was in 2016-2019, but that can't be your starting point. You need to get your audience excited about the movies you're making, and make GOOD movies, which will keep them coming back.
It would have been better to start of Cruises character as a down on his luck archaeologist, who needs to find the lost tomb of someone and somewhere. His marriage fell apart and he’s doing everything he can to make his explorations worth it, since it cost him his marriage and say the relationship with his family. He’s obsessive, bookish and an expert. You can even have the female lead be his coworker, and both are brought in because they may have found the temple to the villains lair, or need to decipher something to find it fully. Having his character be a part of it and having Russell Crowes character as the person fundinf a dig site could have worked, following a bit of the blueprint from the original film. Using the organization as a foil at the end like Marvel did would have been smarter
This attempted universe had three fundamental errors. The first, monsters are NOT superheroes, so you can't base the claim of the movie solely on the action. The monsters are gothic characters, the setting must correspond to the nature of the characters, perhaps you could innovate and not place your universe in the 19th century, but it must have that gothic atmosphere. Third, the characters are more important than the actors, and it was clear that an actor as egocentric as Tom Cruise was going to steal the project to project himself.
I read somewhere that apparently the movie was supposed to focus way more on the mummy but tom cruise insisted on being the more focal character and having more focal characters
The MCU I personally think had a separate benefit that people don't discuss. It was a 'humourous' action movie. A lot of action movies took themselves too seriously for a while. Compare the MCU to Star Wars or Indiana Jones. They were often willing to just be funny, where if you look at other action movies at the time, they were taking themselves too seriously. Personally, thats my suspicion. I'm not super versed in movies, but I believe it filled the missing trend at the time, and I think it may be the 'missing link' that other cinematic universes/hollywood is missing. Now, modern MCU I think, doesn't take itself seriously enough, or mixes in activism, blah blah blah, but general idea, it fit the niche that people needed. It could have been marvel, it could have been any property, but as always, the wrong lesson was learned.
True, you can't really mix different IPs if they meant to be serious, because their rules won't mix well. Like Iron Man and Thor couldn't exist in the same universe if we take it seriously.
I think the thing with a trend like that is that it doesn't last - people get tired of it (even if it's the opposite of the last trend they got tired of) and/or it gets overused/exaggerated. So the MCU arguably bucked the trend of "serious" superhero movies (where everyone wears black, sneers at comic tropes, gets angsty, confronts Hard Hitting Real World Issues etc.) running from Blade through to the Dark Knight trilogy and the early DCEU, but then it (the MCU's brand of action, humour and colour) became the new trend. A lot of people were starting to complain about overuse of quips etc. by Phase 3, and the "wackiness" and colourful CGI are now sometimes seen as having gone too far (cf. Thor Love & Thunder vs Thor Ragnarok, the singing planet in The Marvels, the aesthetic of Quantumania, etc.).
Hmm... strange to hear that Captain American needs commands to function. The main thing, more important than his enhanced body, that he brings to the story is his moral compass. And that compass was often at odds with his orders.
I have a relatively over-the-top home theater, so there are a lot of movies that I will watch simply because they're audio/visual spectacles that shake the walls in half with bass and scare the crap out of people with the surround/atmos effects. Even with all of that, this movie was tough to sit through.
![ROSÉ (로제) - number one girl [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A9oByH9Ci24/mqdefault.jpg)
Having trouble sleeping in the summer? Get Manta Sleep for 10% off with code FILMENTO. No Mummy required. tinyurl.com/2xphcvym
Kong x Godzilla is next.
Over The Hedge review
Why did you reupload this video?
@@pablocardona8158 Copy strike
hell yeah i am very interested on your take for kong x godzilla
@@pablocardona8158 what do you mean? I never made a Mummy video.
Movie should have been a horror movie first, Cinematic universe last.
It should have been a GOOD movie first, instead of just the big screen equivalent of clickbait.
That's what Iron Man greatly did, you can watch that movie as a standalone. It's only with the post credit scene where you literally got confirmation that they're planning to do a cinematic universe.
But money!!!!
@@MajorOctofuss Yes, money. They should have thought about the money before they half assed this shit.
An Indiana Jones style action adventure.
I'm surprised that filmento is reviewing the entire Dark Universe in one video.
Low hanging fruits, goblin.
O
M
G
XD
That’s why he’s my favorite he takes time for us a whole franchise
I think the producers and shareholders were also surprised that the entire DU can be reviewed in a single video lol.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
1st rule of a cinematic universe:
"You do NOT tell everyone that you're making a cinematic universe."
2nd rule of a cinematic universe:
"You do NOT imitate the MCU."
Checks out. For me it’s cooler when movies and shows start coming together out of (seemingly) nowhere, instead of it being a whole explicit thing from the start.
I am happy that so far, the Monsterverse is just being itself, instead of trying to be Marvel. They have found their formula and (judging by the box-office) it's working for them.
To be fair imitating MCU success isn't bad on its own - what they do wrong is trying to achieve 10 years of build up in one or two movies
But I 100% agree with 1st rule
So DCU doomed to fail 😭
@@valentinkambushev4968people just sign up to see Kaiju fighting not because it's a connected universe
The best thing about this Mummy is how it made everyone go back and rewatch the 1990 Mummy movies.
Me when I watch The Mummy for the 10th time: "Oh yeah, this just keeps getting better and better."
I would watch the third Mummy movie multiple times over this one...and I hated that movie. I almost screamed in the theatre when, "the yak yaked," but somehow, this movie, makes that obnoxious joke palatable.
@@QueenSydon That cgi has aged really well for a movie from the 90s
the fact they had the book of the dead in their collection was a trip
Or the 1930 Mummy movies.
The shared universe should have been Tom Cruises as a modern day Van Helsing going from movie to movie fighting different monsters, with an Easter egg in each to the next antagonist.
A much better idea. I'd like to add the possibility to start out with two or three big actors together in movie one and splitting up to hunt the other monsters and having cameo moments.
I think Tom Hardy would be better in the role and by scrapping the all star cast you can keep the budgets low
Actually, I really like the "Van Helsing" movie with Hugh Jackman. Yes, I know, many people dislike it, but it´s far more better than this Mummy movie.
That’s not bad, but not a Tom Cruise role.
We all agree that if they attended again that should be the concept with different actor
The subtitles kept interpreting "mummy" as "mommy" lmao.
i mean, have you SEEN the actress and costume design? o.O
@Sigma_Male_Anti_Female don't insult the SCP Foundation like this!
Oh, please after what happened to scp-1447, we need to address our issue of popping a new generation before our elected idiots hit that shiny red button labeled "DO NOT PRESS UNLESS DOOM".
“Mummy Cetrion. WAIT NO NOT THAT-“
-The4thSnake, approximately
I mean...it's not wrong tho
Also, like... why is Dr. Jekyll the leader of the monster hunting organization and not Van Helsing? Like... he's literally the perfect character to play that role and they just... don't use him. I've been bothered by this since the movie came out because it's just so weird of a choice.
Especially since his Mr Hyde persona is quite deviant and wants to be removed from rigid society.
It's like Dr. Doom being the leader of S.H.I.E.L.D. He's one of the villains, it makes no sense.
It's been done alot would be my guess as to why.
I’m actually surprised they didn’t try and bring in the characters from the 1999 Mummy movie. They didn’t have to be the main characters, but it would be fun to see them come in at the end to hint at a larger universe.
Because the arc and twist of Jekyll succumbing to his monstrous side is more exciting if he's the leader of the good guys, and Van Helsing can still be the audience surrogate and main character without being the leader.
Doing this movie is Tom Cruise's biggest stunt.
He fell off
@@Mojaveknight17 fell off the car
I actually liked this movie. I thought it was really fun. And i loved the idea of a monster movie universe
actually his biggest stunt was becoming a scientologist
@@democracy_enjoyerthat has nothing to do with his acting. come on now
The problem with the Mummy is that the movie is about Tom Cruise, not a Mummy. Give the mummy some depth, make him a character. Make him the anti-hero. In the end, I want to see the MUMMY team up with all the others, not Tom Cruise.
Yea, the general consensus seems to be that the concept itself is a horrible idea, yet I believe when it comes to anything, it's not about what you sell, it's about how you sell it.
"Fishy" vs Ocean Essence
"Fried" vs Crispy
"Bubbles" vs Sparkling
Still a pretty silly idea, I admit, but if done right, it coulda been dope. A collection of anti-hero monsters ripping "other bad guys who deserve it" to shreds.
How a random person on yt made a better script than those getting paid to do so
Releasing the trailer without audio is the perfect way to set expectations for this new film universe.
I'll never stop crackig up at the fact that the first like, 40 seconds of that soundless trailer actually sounded quite effective, for the rest to just become meme heaven.
Yeah, I remember watching the trailer at the first time, I couldn't stop laughing when the girl make a weird noise after she said "NO!" And Tom Cruise is screaming "AHHH! AHHH!" Nonchalantly
That soundless trailer lives rent free in my head forever. 🤣
It was an accident. Not part of the promotional campaign.
I really love that the plan was to have a bunch of iconic, memorable monsters we all know...and then also Tom Cruise as Tom Cruise, just hanging out with the rest of them.
Just happens to run into them, and pretends to be a monster too, to not get killed. But then he can't find an opportunity to sneak out, so he has to keep pretending through the entire movie. And the disguise works too well, now everyone thinks he's a monster, so he's stuck forever.
@andrasbiro3007 he is a scientologist after all, not that hard to pass as a monster
This movie is like a medical student who tells everyone that he'll cure all diseases, but eventually gets expelled from the college after the 1st year because of poor studying
I'm really happy this video started with the scene where she says "...Those chains aren't for bringing it up...they're for holding it down.", and then Tom Cruise promptly uses a single bullet to make the chains do the exact opposite of what she just said. It's literally the stupidity of this film, summed up in one scene.
We can agree that nothing beats the original movie The Mummy with Brendan Fraser.
1932 Mummy: How dare you disrespect me like this?
Come to think of it, why didn’t they just use the 1999 movie as the basis for this new universe? Have the O’Connells be the ones who founded this organization to fight the different monsters of this universe?
I’m not the one who came up with this concept. I just agree that it’s a cool idea.
Last time I checked, Brendan Fraser was not in the original Mummy movie, considering it released 36 years before he was born.
Not the original movie but your point is valid. Fraser crushed it.
@@TF2Fan101 It is a much better idea.
And I'd not have started the franchise with the mummy. But Dracula, Frankenstein and then Dr Jekyll.
I'd have made Cruise Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Since it is basically what he is.
Give Crowe the Invisible Man role since it is mostly voice acting and he was already starting to increase his girth. And he has a great voice and is a gifted actor.
And get some really young actors involved in the other roles.
Trying to turn monster movies into Transformers or Mission Impossible seemed lame.
I’ll die on this hill: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was a fun crossover movie. It was cool that the characters were from classic literature. Yeah there were flaws, but overall it’s a great way to spend a couple hours.
I would die on that hill with ypu bro
Me too
Same three.
Same here. Loved the League. Not perfect but fun and memorable enough. Also Penny Dreadful gave a different spin on the monster universe that was pretty darn good. This classic monster universe could work with right execution.
Loved that movie
Before Madame Web and Morbius there was The Mummy
Movies so boring and badly made that hearing people trash them is way more entertaining than the movies themselves
Madame Web is blowing up on Netflix, but not for the reasons Netflix thinks lol
@@tassothomas5186😂😂, good thing is that Pepsi's sales probably increased
*Gods of Egypt has entered the chat*
@@KeithFraser82😂😂😂😂😂
In which they take the most interesting things imaginable (like seeing the future, vampires (both Dracula in Dracula Untold and Morbius), mummies, and Egyptian Mythology) and making them the most horrendous, boring, stale, and absolutely cliche things ever imaginable!
Sofia Boutella needs a new Agent. She is good however every mainstream role she gets is bad.
This. I really like her and want her to have a successful acting career, but boy she just keeps picking the worst movies to be in.
Her role in Star Trek: Beyond was pretty good.
I agree. And it´s sad how she was essentially buried in this movie (despite being THE TITLE CHARACTER) to make room for Tom Cruises Mary Sue.
She was in Gaspar Noe's Climax.
@@patrickkelmer6290Gary sue not Mary sue
The "Uncle Ben Cam" was perfect. I'm still laughing.
What's even funnier is Russell Crowe called Tom Cruise as "You are a younger man" while in reality Cruise is actually just 1 year older than Crowe
That was so funny. Tom looks great but he aint a young man.
As a producer on this, I'm sure Tom contractually obligated Russell Crowe to say that
isn’t dr. jekyll supposed to be old as hell but ages slower because he has powers? i thought that’s what they were implying with that line.
@@alexandervelez9507 probably but the whole movie was wtf as it is
It's really impressive that Filmento did the ENTIRE Dark Universe Cinematic Universe in ONE video.
Well, the Dark Universe was only made up of one movie.
@@SeanWheeler100
**THAT'S THE JOKE, GENIUS!**
Honestly, I think the reason this universe failed was that it tried way too hard to be serious. Frankly, they should have taken influence from the 1999 Mummy movie and just make a fun movie with likable characters and fun action.
That seems to be exactly what they did. The problem is that they didn't take the story-writing seriously enough, lol.
Fr ‘99 Mummy knows how to blend horror with comedy. Still holds even today.
It failed because Alex Kurtzman didn't want Dracula Untold to be in The Dark Universe and he gave Tom Cruise too much control of The Mummy.
It makes me laugh that the two recent Filmento content consists of having Sofia Boutella in the thumbnail of both an Anatomy of a Failure video.
She is still to die for
@@Zombiesnyder13 in this movie literally
@@Zombiesnyder13 real
@@Filmento Sign me up! I'm dying anyways.
One way to sort out the mummy power would to make them require a ritual. The mummy can have greater power than any other monster, but only if they sacrifice a goat or something.
Not only would this give it limits that Tom Cruise can outrun (Killer sand wall heading for you? Wait for the goat’s blood to run out!), but would also lead to a game of cat and mouse, where Tom Cruise outruns whatever curse the mummy has summoned, then turns around and runs after the mummy to stop them from casting another curse.
Other monsters have more consistent powers, but the mummy has bursts of power that can send any monster for a loop.
Who cares about a goat? A sacrifice should be something of value, such as a team member or some other useful ability.
The mummy should have been the movie 5, avengers 1 of this universe. The first global level threat of insane power in the mummy. The other monsters are usually threats that have much more personal stakes than the huge threat of the mummy.
You made an excellent point about the main character having agency to help move the plot along. In the 1999 movie, the first few minutes clearly shows Imhotep and Rick O'Connell's own personal motives in the introduction = agency. Whereas in the reboot...we just see Nick stumbling on the tomb without knowing his character, motive and purpose and they expect you to have some sort of connection to the character...
My biggest grievance with this movie is such a nitpicking one lol. They introduce Set into the movie that the mummy does a deal with and call him the god of death... which he isnt. Hes the god of deserts and chaos. Set would of still worked as a evil god but you can just tell they slapped death god onto him because it sounded cooler (even though the actual gods associated with death are not even that bad in egyptian mythology and are there to help the dead).
To me it just felt like if you couldnt even be bothered to get the easiest thing right that a person who is only knowledgable on egyptian mythology in an amature sense immediatly picks up that its wrong just shows how little you care for putting effort in. Like hell set has violence as one of his associated things its so easy to just use the actual things associated with him (hell the desert command scenes would make even more sense since he is the actual god of desserts)
Laziness probably.
What we liked with the avengers eventually teaming up was everybody had their own story with little breadcrumbs tying into everything. Not ham fisting their way to trying to make an avengers movie on the first try
Honestly the best way to have done a shared universe was with the Brendan Fraiser Mummy stuff, which was a nice blend of action adventure with some horror elements that definitely lent itself to some interesting world building that could have fit the other monsters like Dracula and Frankenstein.
I'm a simple man. I see Filmento, i click.
thanks for watching
@@Filmento so you gonna do do godzilla x keep or godzilla minus one next?
Never heard that one before
@@erinburke9711 I'm sure you haven't
@@erinburke9711right?!
Perfect opening scene, chains designed to hold the mummy down can be shot to bring it up, right after stating they are not designed to bring it up. How does this actually get written?
Crazy to think that Godzilla and King Kong have been able to pull off a successful cinematic universe where so many others fail like this one did. Speaking of Godzilla, could you cover Godzilla Minus One at least some time in the future? I know you haven't covered a foreign-language film on your channel before, but I believe Minus One is worth covering because it incorporates a lot of the advice you've shared in the past on how to create a great monster movie.
It is very easy, actually: they made a film about Godzilla, then made a movie about Kong, and only sprinkled some connecting tidbits on top. You end up with two solid movies and an audience eager to see them clash.
What this Dark Universe (and the DCEU, for that matter) failed to realize is that you need _characters_ to build upon. That is why Marvel did five freaking movies before setting an ensemble piece. The Monsterverse did three, but leading to a somewhat smaller clash. And it worked.
Someone said this Mummy film is not a movie. It's a trailer for the upcoming movies. And how can you be sure people want to see those movies, if the first one fails to excite the audience?
Godzilla has done it before; twice.
@@schwarzerritter5724 I'm afraid I don't know what you’re talking about. The MonsterVerse is the first time Godzilla has been in a cinematic universe. Godzilla didn't do this “twice before”.
@@TheKaijuKing54 Many of the monsters that appeared in Godzilla movies alongside Godzilla, like Rhodan and Mothra, starred in their own movies before and after.
It was more of a cinematic universe than it is now.
@@TheKaijuKing54 Kinda, In the Showa Era, after the first two Godzilla movies, Toho made movies about other Kaiju, many of them would get later tied into the Showa Godzilla movies, Mothra (from Mothra (1961)) and Rodan (from Rodan (1956)) are probably the most famous of them, but not the only ones, as in Destroy all Monsters, which was originally planned to be the final Godzilla movie, Varan (from Varan (1958)), Manda (from Atragon (1963)), Gorosaurus (from King Kong Escapes (1967)) and Baragon (from Frankenstein vs Baragon (1965)) all appeared. The Showa Era of godzilla could as such be argued, to be a cinematic universe, if only a loose one.
I watch a movie which I don't care for, but when my wife asks me "Why didn't you like it?", I have two choices:
1: Answer her, "Don't know...just didn't" -or-
2: Run to Filmento and then give her a thorough unbiased detailed answer!
Made it modern instead of a period piece, and it never stood a chance of getting out of the shadow of the 1999 The Mummy.
To much money and effort. They gotta pay Tom for his stunts
I think your trouble is that it's Tom Cruise. He's so famous that he doesn't play characters anymore- he's just Tom Cruise in another movie. We see RDJ as a big star now, but when Iron Man I came out, he was washed up and on his way out. Willing to take direction and play the role properly. That's what they needed for this.
And now he's a damn millionarie and Oscar winner. Talking about getting the right character at the right time.
I would've gone for Justin Long as Nick Morton.
I didn’t even know there was supposed to be a cinematic universe when I watched it. That in turn made me confused why Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde suddenly showed up later. The also barely even set one up to exist despite have their shield rip off and implying other monsters existed. Kind of felt like they didn’t want to foreshadow any particular thing yet because they made up the plan on the spot when they decided on a reboot.
I don't know what it is about this movie, but when Russel Crow shows up on screen I fall asleep. I have had this movie playing twice and both times, his character just knocks me out. That ending sponsored ad intro hits different!
If you wanna start a cinematic universe based on classic universal monsters you don't start with the mummy. Even aside from how bad the movie itself is that's not how you get a franchise off the ground you start with your biggest name to attract an audience and THEN you reveal you have more. Should have started with Dracula plain and simple
Iron man wasnt a very popular charackter before the mcu either
They did start with Dracula, Dracula Untold came out in 2014 as an attempt at starting a cinematic universe, no one cared.
Well I would argue that main problem with Dark Universe would be tone, direction and connection. Are we going to do anti hero monsters route, or are we staying Dracula is bad guy? How are we connecting the stories? Is there one monster hunter ala van Helsing/Michaele or are we watching chronicle of stories tell by one overlooking story teller? This is not going to be easy task and there is rather miniscule room for maneuvering once the path is set.
Oh and maybe making like at least first two or three movies good could give some boost to this universe of yours.
Funny thing is that they have, they just all tanked so hard that they have to keep restarting with another monster.
See y'all in a few years when we get a Creature of the Black Lagoon movie starring Zendaya that will surely kick off "The Universal Monsters Universe (UMU)"
And make the movies actually good like with the first Iron man its not a cinematic masterpiece but still its a good movie, had some memorable with actuall development over the movies storyline
What I find most frustrating is that Brandon Frasier's mummy is actually perfect for launching a cinematic universe. Rick O Connor is perfect to carry a franchise, just thinking of Him and his gang facing off against Dracula already gives me goosebumps. Even if it was a sequel set years after events of first mummy, we could set up the story in a way that a older Rick O Conor can face off against Dracula instead of facing the mummy for the 100th time. We could easily make him the main recurring character who goes onto different monster adventure, with each connecting to each other until they face a big threat where all the movies come together. Sadly stupid studio decision will likely never make it happen. Which is fine because I love that mummy.
I disagree. Rick is not the only hero of the Mummy, there is also Evelyn and one doesn't work without the other in a very subtle way. Hell one of the many reasons why the third one was a flop is because there was a different actress and it ruined everything between the characters. If you bring Rick you have to bring Evelyn, and I don't think that Evelyn would necessary work very well outside of Egypt and outside of the mummy stuff. She is more action oriented in the second one but she is the brain first, and her knowing everything would make her completly overpowered.
@@mynameis7552 No Rick would work the third movie was bad due to repetition, bad writing and not knowing what to do with his character. Even the second movie had these issues. With a proper writer these things can be fixed. He was modeled after indiana jones and many 90s action hero along with Fraiser's charm he works really well. A lot better then Tom as an adventure hero. I think he's the only character that could be a glue in a cinematic universe, similar to captain america. You can have new characters in Dracula like Van Helsing, I mean hugh Jackman was already cast. Something tells me with proper writing they would have incredible chemistry but we'll never know. Evelyn could be a recurring character it depends on how the writers use her.
Take the first movie only and move it into the future, an alternate future kind of thing. (Maybe reuse a few clips from the sequels in the backstory explainer to show the changes.) Call it the Carnahan foundation, they're a library for this kind of thing with a sideline in containment and showing up armed when you need them. Jonathan's the nominal head/guy who schmoozes, Evelyn is the head researcher giving direction, kind of a Q role with some action scenes when something gets loose from containment, Rick's the 007 with a team of variously motivated characters, whoever of that secret society survived are their Egyptian counterparts they sometimes collaborate with. Start with a Dracula variant, post original Dracula someone has released him and the newest Harker and Mina are hunting down information from some shady rich Englishman who seems terrified and definitely isn't Jonathan C, they get holy water or whatever from him and try to terrorise him into helping, we think it's unsuccessful. Cut to the end and the victorious heroes have sealed Dracula and are about to be killed by the remaining minions as they try to escape. BANG, Rick and Evie's team show up and we get a big damn heroes scene after the new guys have had their own big moment, new guys get offered access, Jonathan is back at the plane smoothing things over with the authorities so the new team get away with whatever property destruction happens earlier in the film. There you go, we've set up a franchise in a way that doesn't detract from the individual films and given everybody and excuse to rewatch the first Mummy (1999), which honestly is pretty much all anyone wanted from this film.
Dracula Untold was good.
I feel a strong urge to watch the Mummy again now, the one with Brendan Fraser, obviously, which is a perfect film as far as I'm concerned.
It’s one of those movies you put in the background while doing chores around the house!
Tom Cruise's character was named Tom Cruise. I'm in for sexy Mummy and Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll (actually give me a whole movie of that). They should've just played into the all villain theme of this universe. Or resurrect Van Helsing.
The biggest problem with cinematic universes that this movie is a perfect example of is shoving in too much stuff. Like if you want to make a cinematic universe you want like 2 separate elements from the universe instead of at least 5. Because if you want to make a universe you have to start out a little small in order for it not to feel desperate.
Saw this movie in theatres back in 2017, I had been particularly excited for it cause I loved the original Mummy and love cruise so what could go wrong?
Easily the most painful movie watch I’ve had in a theatre, almost walked out numerous times but my buddy remained hopeful it would turn around till the end. When the credits rolled his disappointment was indescribable, it was just all around one the most unsatisfied a film has ever left me
It was really all spelled out for me in that GQ-style photoshoot Universal released to announce the Dark Universe bullshit. It was, to sum up, a bunch of random Hollywood celebrities standing around in a bland, empty room just there for star power--and the photos were taken separately and stitched together because they couldn't get everyone involved to actually be attached to each other, just like in the movie(s). Truly prophetic.
I can't tell if Sofia Boutella is a grade B actress or if she is just unlucky to constantly be put in grade B movies
Same. I think it's a mixture of both. I remember the Director of Kingsman (Which is an awesome movie) saying that the moment he saw how acrobatic and flexible she was (being a trained gymnast or dancer I think), he knew she'd be perfect for the gal with the leg knives, which admittedly she was great doing all them stunts but to be front and center in a movie I don't think she's a strong performer.
Tom Cruise No to IrOn MaN
Tom Cruise: (Mummy) SiGn mE In
Would Tom Cruise even be able to do improv? (for context; Iron Man didn't have a script, they improved all of the dialogue)
mommy*
Alan Wake 2 mentioned 🔥🔥🔥 Herald of Darkness mentioned 👏👏👏👏👏👏
2003's "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" kind of fell into the same trap. It had a cool concept but they had trouble with plot and character cohesion.
As well as having studio versions of characters. Once again Captain Nemo is nothing like the book.
I'd like to see a remake of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. If done well it be a really cool Dark Universe
Did not expect filmento to be a fan of Alan Wake
I just finished the second game. Slow beginning but it gets going and I liked it very much. I was a big fan of the first game on Xbox 360
Video on Alan Wake?
Imhotep vs O'Connell was awesome.
Then we got this thing.
Only good thing was how mister Hide was portrayed.
I really, really wanted Dark Universe to exist successfully, like a niche series where you see Dracula from Dracula Untold meeting with this secret society to play that "holy game" with his master etc.
It's kind of mindnumbing how little Dark Universe even understood its own premise. It was a horror movie franchise. They should have made horror movies. The "society" should have only existed in a post-credit scene in which they appear during "cleanup", probably tying into the "monster is still alive" shock revelation in the end. I'd still like to see this honestly attempted.
Using “The Herald of Darkness” from Alan Wake 2 is awesome
Thank you The Mummy (2017) for giving us the initial trailer with missing audio, it cracks me up every single time!
Heeey you actually saw my sugestion and made the video 🥰I REALLY apriciate it.
*appreciate
Thank for putting the ad at the end 🙏
That photo of all the cebrities promoting the Dark Universe always gets a laugh out of me for how slapped together it looks, like why is Russel Crowe's hand positioned so awkwardly? It looks like it supposed to resting on something, like maybe the chair Javier Bardem is sitting on?
Honestly, even the Sonic Cinematic Universe that is coming is very promising and ticks all of the same checkmarks in this video.
Each character, (even some of the human characters) are interesting, unique, and make us want to see how they will interact. For the third Sonic movie, I'm pretty sure everyone is excited to see how Sonic, the kind, light-hearted, goofball will interact with Shadow, the stoic, dead serious and traumatized Ultimate Lifeform will interact. And there are so many more character interactions that I'm eager for.
The concepts are amazing too. With these alien creatures each having different unique abilites, and with Dr. Eggman being a large threat and the chaos emeralds. There are so many things that can be done now.
And lastly, the connective tissue is there. Like, we have the concept of Aliens and other planets being teased but they don't become the main focus. But they can provide enough to connect this Universe into something larger.
8:05
NAWWWW you did NOT just show that
I used to like Filmento, but now seeing he used Herald of Darkness in his video, I think I love him
I think that if Dr. Jekyll was the main character. You can get those different interesting interactions and the problems he’d have with having the monster within. I loved the IDEA of the monster verse but it’s a shame it was fumbled so poorly
The transition from vid to add to vid ending joke was so smooth. Well done.
Its insane that these studios keep trying to skip years of worldbuilding, thinking they can just skip right ahead without putting the work in
In retrospect, hiring the same story writer who put one too many Cinimatic Universe material in the amazing spider man 2 was not Universal's smartest moves.
(I do like TASM2 tho but still)
The universe NEVER needed rebooting from the last time…they should have KEPT going with Brandon Frazier and crew (have the kids do all of the adventuring while Mom and Dad play the guy in the chair) but NOOOOOO!!!
They should've released a Mummy prequel told from her POV, entirely set in Antiquity. Have us feel for her before she irredeemably descends into villainy.
Then release the movie we got starring a relative unknown who gets possessed by Seth so the world is inching closer to annihilation forcing Jekyll to recruit the likes of Invisible Man, Frankenstein, Hellsing and even Dracula (who could be contained with a Suicide Squad-esque device in his neck or a cursed item controlling him).
This is exactly what I've been looking for. After years of waiting, you finally did it. Thank you!
I knew you were going to cover this movie eventually!!! Do a film perfection video on Challengers and the Fall Guy next!!!
Characters with the same “shape” can work if they’re deliberately set up to be similar though, and they do something with that similarity.
It's crazy that this movie was even worse than the previous failed attempt (the Dracula untold).
Like, comparing with the DCEU, at least Man of Steel was better than Green Lantern.
I remember walking into this movie back in June 2017 knowing it would be a bad movie, and then I was still utterly fascinated by how bad it really was for several months.
That tends to happen when you give Tom Cruise too much control of a movie.
@ Yeah, he essentially pushed THE LITERAL TITLE CHARACTER to the side for his own Mary Sue self insert.
OMG now I want to see a Wick/Bourne crossover...
One example of a good conected multeverse is of tho series that DIDN'T start as such.
Godzilla and Transformers (the rebooted one).
They first set up the universe, ergo, make a good movie to begin with, and then they didn't conect them with anything, they expanded the universe in a natural way.
And while I have my doubts about the Transformers CU, the fact they focused on a good fundation, makes it far more succesful than most CUs which try to start at 100%.
the MCU partially worked as well as it did (before Disney tried milking the money cow until it died) is that there were 70+ years of comic source material to draw from. Characters were super distinct in both individual issues and group issues. Some stories didn't work, but then that comic run was replaced with a story that worked better. MCU writers could cherry pick the very best stories to work on-screen to showcase the heroes that fit for their specific story. Individual movies stood on their own as individual comic stories played out in-full. The team line-up was small enough that everyone felt important and relevant (except Hawkeye, but whatever).
Comparatively, a bunch of monster movies based on a mix of 19th century novels (usually about deeper and more complex themes now boiled down to "isn't that monster spooky"), or based on urban legends just don't have the same strength of characters, especially the bland, interchangeable protagonists who mostly exist to be audience stand-ins to show off how spooky the antagonist is.
It's possible to overshadow the movie with introducing a universe. Just keep it until the last moment. Let the big power show up at the last moment, after the hero already won, and take charge then. Of course, it's better if they are evil, or at least ambiguous, because rising the stakes for the sequel is generally a good idea. Maybe best if their intentions are unknown, because that adds mystery too.
Or they show up before the boss fight, and suddenly the hero and the villain find themselves on the same side. They have to achieve some small victory, to give the movie a satisfying ending. But also unlock a much bigger danger to give reason for the rest of the movies to exist. If you want cool character interactions, forcing a hero and a villain to work together is an excellent recipe. Has been done many times, but not overdone yet, and it's always cool.
Probably should have started w Dracula or Frankenstein 1st. Marvel didnt start off w Black Widow or Ant-man for a reason 🤔 😂
Excellent Video! You perfectly Nailed down the problems (characters, organization, plot) with this movie.
Strange.... I remember that the monster cinematic Universe is Successful...
oh wait... That's was Hotel Transylvania... 🤣
17:14 The Dark Universe would need MASSIVE overhauling to be something, ANYTHING, I would watch.
I just realized I started watching this movie in 2017 and still haven't finished it
😂
Sakamoto days is a manga thats getting an anime adaptation and it does a really good job at the idea of Equal but different because all the assassins have complete different mean on how they fight and it makes every encounter feel fresh seeing how they will combat each other
This was a two hour trailer for a franchise that didn't happen.
The biggest issue with the Dark Universe, in my opinion, is they forgot the most important element of cinematic universes: make movies people want to see more of. Rather than making a good Mummy movie, the Dark Universe was more interested in making a good set-up for their universe.
ALL of the problems Filmento mentions are valid, but if audiences connected with the movie and left saying "wow, I want to see more of that," that is all they needed to make a cinematic universe. Instead, the Dark Universe banked on star power, which I don't think is as big of a draw anymore as it was previously, and thinking that announcing a ton of projects would draw people in. The idea being that even if someone wasn't super invested in a Tom Cruise-led Mummy movie, they would stick it out for the set-up of a Javier Bardem Frankenstein movie, or a Russell Crowe Dr Jekyll movie.
This is a point the MCU EVENTUALLY got to, though even that isn't really the case as much as it was in 2016-2019, but that can't be your starting point. You need to get your audience excited about the movies you're making, and make GOOD movies, which will keep them coming back.
I agree with you, and I have said that Universal should've stayed The Course with Dracula Untold.
8:03 Is there a lore reason Man is marrying a table? Is he stupid?
I thought man was married to jonkler
The one I really want to see in the future was Like Evas' Dracula
The next video should be titled how I fumbled your heart 😘 .
Makes a table joke: "A marriage between a man and a table"
My head after getting rotten from watching TikToks: ~ "That's very Table-ist of you"
It would have been better to start of Cruises character as a down on his luck archaeologist, who needs to find the lost tomb of someone and somewhere. His marriage fell apart and he’s doing everything he can to make his explorations worth it, since it cost him his marriage and say the relationship with his family. He’s obsessive, bookish and an expert. You can even have the female lead be his coworker, and both are brought in because they may have found the temple to the villains lair, or need to decipher something to find it fully. Having his character be a part of it and having Russell Crowes character as the person fundinf a dig site could have worked, following a bit of the blueprint from the original film.
Using the organization as a foil at the end like Marvel did would have been smarter
This attempted universe had three fundamental errors.
The first, monsters are NOT superheroes, so you can't base the claim of the movie solely on the action.
The monsters are gothic characters, the setting must correspond to the nature of the characters, perhaps you could innovate and not place your universe in the 19th century, but it must have that gothic atmosphere.
Third, the characters are more important than the actors, and it was clear that an actor as egocentric as Tom Cruise was going to steal the project to project himself.
I read somewhere that apparently the movie was supposed to focus way more on the mummy but tom cruise insisted on being the more focal character and having more focal characters
The MCU I personally think had a separate benefit that people don't discuss. It was a 'humourous' action movie.
A lot of action movies took themselves too seriously for a while. Compare the MCU to Star Wars or Indiana Jones. They were often willing to just be funny, where if you look at other action movies at the time, they were taking themselves too seriously.
Personally, thats my suspicion. I'm not super versed in movies, but I believe it filled the missing trend at the time, and I think it may be the 'missing link' that other cinematic universes/hollywood is missing.
Now, modern MCU I think, doesn't take itself seriously enough, or mixes in activism, blah blah blah, but general idea, it fit the niche that people needed. It could have been marvel, it could have been any property, but as always, the wrong lesson was learned.
True, you can't really mix different IPs if they meant to be serious, because their rules won't mix well. Like Iron Man and Thor couldn't exist in the same universe if we take it seriously.
I think the thing with a trend like that is that it doesn't last - people get tired of it (even if it's the opposite of the last trend they got tired of) and/or it gets overused/exaggerated.
So the MCU arguably bucked the trend of "serious" superhero movies (where everyone wears black, sneers at comic tropes, gets angsty, confronts Hard Hitting Real World Issues etc.) running from Blade through to the Dark Knight trilogy and the early DCEU, but then it (the MCU's brand of action, humour and colour) became the new trend. A lot of people were starting to complain about overuse of quips etc. by Phase 3, and the "wackiness" and colourful CGI are now sometimes seen as having gone too far (cf. Thor Love & Thunder vs Thor Ragnarok, the singing planet in The Marvels, the aesthetic of Quantumania, etc.).
Hmm... strange to hear that Captain American needs commands to function. The main thing, more important than his enhanced body, that he brings to the story is his moral compass. And that compass was often at odds with his orders.
I liked it...
That whiff of the Duck Tales theme was 👌
I have a relatively over-the-top home theater, so there are a lot of movies that I will watch simply because they're audio/visual spectacles that shake the walls in half with bass and scare the crap out of people with the surround/atmos effects. Even with all of that, this movie was tough to sit through.
6:21 That uncle ben cam was hilarious.
Tom crusier running this movie into the ruins you can say 😂❤
You explore the greatest concepts man. My fav channel
0:50 this is why I respect Filmento, representing the will of the people!