So, after this movie, is it safe to say that the Dark Universe

>>83808599
The movie is doing crazy money in China. No, Dark Universe isn't going anywhere.

With Cruise, who's still one of the last real "movie stars" that draws money from name recognition alone in an era where the star vehicle marketing tactic has long been dying, obviously this will make bank regardless of how lacking in effort and interest from the cast and director it is (and as someone who just saw it less than an hour ago, it is very much so).

I can't really say the same for the rest they have lined up though. Crowe, Depp and Jolie aren't especially relevant in this day and age, and if the quality of films is consistent with what's been established with Mummy, audiences are going to eventually catch a hint in addition to not being drawn in by the cast, regardless of how much Universal push the marketing.

It's nuts that they were able to make King Kong successful in 2017 but not The Mummy.

>hit the right balance of hot and interesting with the mummy
>ruin it by filling the movie with some old, washed out white guy
Why.

>>83808599
This movie is a solid good time. I just got back from it and can say without hesitation that I enjoyed the hell out of it. The Prodigium scenes were my favorite part.

>>83811461
I rather watch modern Kaiju than modernized classic horror monsters.

>>83810113
>Depp
Like 600 millions with last movie irrelevant?

>>83811604
>choosing the skeleton lanklet blonde chick over Egyptian princess with 5000 years of pent up sexual frustration who wants to make you a god

What was tom cruise even thinking

>>83811651
Nah, more like this kind of irrelevant
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=alice2.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=whiteybulger15.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=mortdecai.htm

Pirates also has franchise and millennial nostalgia on its side.

PAN PAN PAN

>>83812488
Black Mass had a pretty limited topic for a world wide success and given the low budget it didn't do that bad worldwide. He was a side character with kilograms of makeup and whatever else in Looking Glass, seems weird to count it against him, so Mortdecai is the only big flop here.

>Pirates also has franchise
That didn't get a movie in 6 years and disappointed most fans with the last one. It's almost a reboot like the Mummy.

>>83812707
It's not that those three films are flops, it's that Depp just doesn't sell movies the way he used to. Also, even if in Looking Glass he's a side character, he was still the most heavily marketed aspect of the movie.
>That didn't get a movie in 6 years and disappointed most fans with the last one.
Then why did this new one make as much as it did?

>>83813128
> it's that Depp just doesn't sell movies the way he used to
He never really did. Outside of Sleepy Hollow his movies never did that impressive on the box office before and after POTC. In the first Alice movie he didn't play a big role either. These days I doubt anyone but Di Caprio or Robert Downey Jr could sell a movie by themselves. Maybe Damon.

>he was still the most heavily marketed aspect of the movie
Which was cringy as fuck.

>Then why did this new one make as much as it did?
Because it's great entertainment and stands out against all the capeshit and sci fi. It has the monopoly on pirates.