ITT horrible reboots/remakes that completely missed the point.

File: giv.png (45KB, 778x512px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 778x512px

>>84051874
giv mummy gf

There have been a billion mummy movies. If you mean Universal the original was essentially a supernatural gothic love story. The 90's ones were pulp throwback adventure movies.

What point is being missed?

>>84051874
The 90s Mummy is actually an Ancient Egyptian culture promotion movie that educate kids beyond Ten Comandements and Prince of Egypt

Personally I would say Gods of Egypt cannot be made if not for Mummy

File: 7bfa8cb5c3c574ac385b89787946e2ab[1].jpg (197KB, 761x1050px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 761x1050px

>>84051874
>saw trailer for this when I went to see OP's movie
>everything is grimdark edgy "THIS IS ART TAKE THIS AS SERIOUSLY AS A HEART ATTACK" bullshit
>at the end of the trailer we finally see Pennywise
>he has a runny motion blured seizure over intense music that supposed to be scary
>the entire theater burst into laughter.

>>84051874
As soon as I saw the over the top destruction porn in western city in the trailer I rolled my eyes and decided not to watch. So overdone at this point, we don't need to see London/New York/Washington get destroyed

File: IMG_8679.jpg (31KB, 206x305px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 206x305px

>>84051874
This total piece of shit no one asked for.

>>84052028
But the movie is not out yet.

>>84051920
>Being retarded on purpose
>Maybe on purpose

As I'm sure you're aware, OP is referring to how the Brendan Fraser Mummies were campy and self aware, whilst the new one took itself too seriously. Since no one anywhere has been scared of a mummy since the 1930s, the premise only works if it's a silly movie

saw it today, not bad, cruise is always good; but disappointed Monster Mash didn't start playing during the credits roll.

>>84051920

Watching James Rolfe's recent video, there really aren't that many mummy movies, and really only the Boris Karloff one or the 1999 Brendan Fraiser seem all that interesting. Mummies may be one of the most underused monsters, at least for their own standalone movies.

>>84052430
I thought it was an interesting take on the story
Btw can't be a remake if it's based off a book

>>84053483
Still counts as a remake if a movie was made from the book already.

>>84051920
Yeah, OP and the dumb whiners haven't even seen the classic mummy. The dude who referenced an RLM pointer ITT should be shot dead.

Fuck you i like it

>>84052028
>Missed the point

thank fuck IT is a shit book by a shit writer, hope they make it as different as possible as to actually achieve something worthwhile

>inb4 edgy
fuck off /teenlit/

File: 10745.jpg (47KB, 596x335px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 596x335px

Who the fuck thought this was a good idea?

>>84052522
Does this mummy movie have any ties with the frasier ones, is it the same ip? Is the Mummy name copyrighted?

File: star-wars-the-force-awakens-poster.jpg (2MB, 1458x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1458x2160px

>The First Order is supposed to be a splinter group of the Galactic Empire yet they have a bigger Death Star and are somehow still a major threat
>The "Resistance" still exists despite a new Galactic Republic being formed
>Luke runs away like a pussy when Ben Solo turns to the dark side instead of sticking by his friends
>Han is killed and thrown away like a pair of shitty underpants
>Full of plot holes and questions that basically require you to watch the sequels and read the expanded universe to understand what's going on
>On top of it all, it's literally just a remake of Episode 4 with Jew Jew Abram's lens flare and bullshit plot devices, yet it still made a billion dollars because it appealed to fake nerds and nostalgic manchildren

>>84052028

Shitty book turned shitty movie, turned shitty reboot movie.

All of this is to be expected.

>>84057013
But anon, that movie turned out pretty decently. Way better than it had any right to be, at minimum.

File: SofiaBoutellaMummy.png (893KB, 1388x576px) Image search: [Google]

893KB, 1388x576px

>>84051908

>>84051874
>that completely missed the point.
I don't get it... it followed the 1932 Mummy movie as was the original intention more closer than it did with the 1999 movie, it brought in Dr Jekyll because this is the first in a set of cinematic universe movies. Sofia Boutella as the Mummy was well cast.

What did they miss the point?

>>84058879
It's literally Antoine Fuqua's worst film