Can't bruise th-

>>84108858
I bet Brendan is rolling in his grave right now..

>>84108885
>I bet you wished you took up my suggestion to have me cameo in the movie back then when you had the chance, don't you? huh? HUH?! Thought you were too good for me? Who's laughing now?!

Seems like Warcraft all over again. International box office is solid but it bombed here.

>>84108885
>>84108919
Shut up guys, he's back.

>>84108858
I don't want to bully Brendan but I liked this movie. And I fell in love with the mummy.

More like THE CRUMMY.

Am I RIGHT? WAKKA WAKKA!

>>84108927

yeah well can't beat capeshit in murrica.
except with star wars.

average IQ of 90 shows

>>84108858
i thought this was making bank overseas? why didnt chinca save tom

>>84110895
are you saying this movie requires high IQ to appreciate?

File: Reeeeee.gif (2MB, 480x481px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x481px

>>84108858

File: 1494412167266.jpg (236KB, 691x625px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 691x625px

>>84111041
>Trusting click bait articles
>Fallijng for shills
>OP is a faggot that didn't even give a link to the article

>>84111456
The Mummy is none of those you stupid frog poster.

>>84111509
you can't be serious.

>>84108927
Will it even come out in China? I thought they had trouble with ghosts and zombies and all that supernatural shit.

File: 00cbc6ab9a7443cd2c38a820999872b2.jpg (15KB, 236x329px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 236x329px

>>84108858
F R A S E R H E A D S

File: sofia boutella.jpg (331KB, 1200x1798px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1200x1798px

why didn't people come out to see sofia?

>>84111483
>falling for shills
You mean the people desperate enough to defend this movie just because of muh cruise?

>>84111483
>>84111041
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-mummy-will-lose-money-box-office-2017-6

File: 19274972_10155714552932448_1625958055395255373_n.jpg (44KB, 636x523px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 636x523px

>>84108885
brendan is savage

>>84111585
That's not him, he doesn't have the blue checkmark indicating official status.

Gonna buy Tom's Mummy just because that's the hottest mummy I've ever seen.

>>84108885
>>84109266
/fraserheads/ rejoice
the mummy is kino

>>84108858
Only reason it even got attention is because MCUcks wanted it to beat Wonder Woman

>>84111638
Or, you know, Tom Cruise is in it.

>>84111585
>Roger Ebert
What? Didn't he die?

>>84111605
I thought the samw thing but it is actually true. He is confirmed for browsing /tv/ now.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BVU1ACdh0dD/?hl=nl

>>84108858
The Dark Universe is DOA.

>>84111701
It says "Fan Page" in the profile description. It's not him.

>>84111701
>I thought the samw thing but it is actually true
No it's not, you just proved it by posting that link, he doesn't have the blue checkmark indicating official status.

File: sides.jpg (34KB, 320x401px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 320x401px

>>84111653
remember how those programmers in scotland programmed a computer with roger ebert's voice so after his jaw was removed he could speak through the computer in his own voice?

it's a little known fact they also did the opposite: they uploaded roger ebert's consciousness into a computer such that roger ebert himself can speak through the computer in his own words.

think about it; it's his perfect existence. he has shuffled off this mortal coil and can now review every movie that comes out in perfect vision. when he opens a .avi file, he sees and hears it with previously impossible focus and clarity

File: 1474643915155.jpg (38KB, 362x346px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 362x346px

>>84108858
>budget: 125M
>Current box office: 295M
Unless they spend like 100-200M in marketing I don't see how it will lose money, specially considering it just opened in places like China and other countries.

>>84111653
he wrote the review and left it in his will, just in case anyone was stupid enough to do a The Mummy reboot

>>84111653
Obviously not if you see his review on there, its not rocket science

>>84111701
That was already proven looong ago on the IMDB forums, I miss those

File: IMG_3699.png (770KB, 504x942px) Image search: [Google]

770KB, 504x942px

>>84108885
*sobs* g-good one anon...

>>84111750
$345 million ($195 million production budget, $150 million for distribution and advertising).

>>84108858
No link or source, we are not all liberal pussies you can talk shit to.

>>84111750
It's not, shills (Disney maybe? DCucks? ...Brendan Fraser fans?) are just desperate to see it fail.

>>84111821
Googling ''the mummy'' gives you the result.
>>84111574

>>84111519
Nah, they just hate skeletons.

>>84111848
Ghostbusters wasn't skeletons.

>>84111823
>>84111750
see
>>84111574

>>84111795
The budget listed is 125M, also I'm surprised how much the CGI looks compared to DC or Marvel movies, we just stop giving RDJ and Snyder more money and keep spending money in better CGI.

>>84111868
>The budget listed is 125M
Nope, it's 345m. Hell that 125m doesn't even account for marketing.
>>84111574

>>84111841
too different numbers from op and anti ad blocker, go fuck yourself

>>84111823
I'm a Brendan Fraser fan, and honestly I want this to succeed because it actually hints and has an easter egg regarding old Mummy movies.

>>84111848
No, it's ghosts they don't like.
>>84111904
>too different numbers from op
What?

>>84111923
Its both ghost and skeletons actually

The mummy doesn't show any bones and isn't a ghost in some form right?

>>84111904
Let me guess, you thought the OP said 595 million?

File: 1494894480514.png (430KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 680x680px

>>84111865
>The movie is PROJECTED to lose that amount according to some random website not affiliated with Universal Studios or their finances
See http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Mummy-The-(2017)#tab=summary
the movie is doing fine.

>>84111951
no is 100

>>84111533
Is she balding?

>>84111964
...what?

>>84111958
Where in that site does it say it's doing fine? It has the exact same numbers as the businessninsider link.

>>84111981
Why you trying to argue faggot the op is 95 and the link has 100.

File: 1480831994461.jpg (45KB, 480x479px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 480x479px

>>84111958
Not sure if they tried to make Anna Kendrick look ugly or if they tried to fix her face

>>84112012
And that's a huge difference to you? Jesus, that's some desperate attempt at dismissing it, especially since the article itself specifies it's 95 million anyhow.

File: dark.jpg (147KB, 1674x383px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1674x383px

>>84108858
I want this to do good if only to see how the other monsters will fare.

File: sru6s6ru.jpg (56KB, 1600x675px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1600x675px

>>84108885
>Fraser was so poor he had to sleep in a sarcophagus prop he took home from the set of the mummy
Poor guy.

>>84111605
Is this a meme now? Look through some of the posts on that IG, he hints at being cast in Condor and The Field before either of these announcements were public. If it isn't Brendan, then it's someone with impossibly intimate knowledge of Brendan.

I'm pretty sure IG is like Twitter in that you have to put in a request to get verified. Brendan either doesn't know how to do it (he seems rather technologically incompetent if you read his posts) or just doesn't care

>>84111724
It's a page run by Brendan for his fans

>Universal sources project "The Mummy" will earn $300 million overseas and $75 million domestically by the time its theatrical run ends.
kek not even Universal themselves have hope for this thing to be a big hit, even if it reaches those numbers that's at best just a 30 million profit.

>>84111519
By changing the dialogue in the dubs and removing some shots, can't they basically say she's an immortal sorceress that was sealed off and try to brush aside the undead aspects?

>>84112102
And it won't reach them because Transformers comes out in a few days, and China loves that shit.

>>84111533
I did and I fucking loved her. In Tom's shoes I would've gone with her without hesitation.

>>84108858
It's not like he funded the movie himself. He got paid to be in it and SURPRISE was the best part of it.

>>84112043
It's kind of important when it's millions and you trying to prove a point. If the Studio put out the numbers theirs on need to make bullshit up. once again fuck your mother.

>>84112155
No it's not important when we're talking hundred million dollar movies, especially since, again, the article mentions 95 million anyhow.

Stop trying to dismiss it you coward. Nothing you say is gonna magically make the evil source go away.

>>84111585

>i posted it again
>i'm just memeing bro!
>i know its not him but that won't stop me!!

File: whatamireading.jpg (104KB, 613x533px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 613x533px

>>84112155
>If the Studio put out the numbers theirs on need to make bullshit up
Are you an indian trying to speak English?

>>84111707
Do they realize this? Film executives seem to be genuinely stupid people.

>>84112203
see
>>84112089

File: images.jpg (11KB, 309x476px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 309x476px

>>84110456

File: dark universe.jpg (355KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1000x563px

>>84112218
They already hired the other actors. Depp is the Invisible Man.

File: Superscalp.jpg (43KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x375px

>>84111966
x over

>>84112142
NO HE WASN'T..

File: 1497423769413.png (1MB, 1062x594px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1062x594px

>>84112008
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mummy_(2017_film)
Budget was 125 million with a 293 million total box office.
The problem is when people who aren't affiliated with Universal start pulling numbers out of their asses to claim the Mummy is failing.

>>84112189
>Nothing you say is gonna magically make the evil source go away.
tell me when they get the facts straight. Or do you like losing to Trump some more.

>>84111750
Ignore the shills; it's going to make millions. Cinemas give all the ticket revenue plus half of food and merchandise sales to the film company.

File: henry.png (93KB, 361x320px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 361x320px

>>84112272
don't bully him he already bought himself some hair plugs.

>>84112269
So They are basically hinting Boutella may come back, so I guess I will go to watch the movie again.

>>84112299
>tell me when they get the facts straight
They did though, again, the article mentions 95 million. Hell they even point out that the film is doing better than projected but it's still going to lose money because it's at 295 million revenue out of a total 345 million budget accounting for both production costs and marketing, since the numbers will stop for good when Transformers come out in a few days.

>>84112089
>please guys it's real brendan not my page i swear pls follow it

>>84112272
Very-Greatman

>>84112306
>shills are the ones pointing out the numbers, totally not the people desperately defending this movie for their masters
Pffthahahaha.

>>84111868
>we just stop giving RDJ and Snyder more money and keep spending money in better CGI.
Yeah I'm sure Tom Cruise was so cheap LOL

File: dark.jpg (339KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1000x563px

>>84112269

>>84112367
You sure told him.

sucks cause I really liked Russell Crowe as Dr Jekkyll even though that part in the story seemed jammed in for the sake of promoting Universal's Dark universe.

>>84112306
>Cinemas give all the ticket revenue plus half of food and merchandise sales to the film company.
You are wrong, it works different in America and rest of the world, but it is something like this.

>America and couple countries
100% first week, and slowly decreasing until last weeks when they reach 0%
>Most countries in the world
A fixed rated between 20% and 60% depending film and studio, artsy movies and smaller studios get less, famous blockbusters and bigger studios get a bigger share.

>>84112391
Tom Cruise gets between 5-20M per movie, RDJ is now getting 50M per movie

File: 1494316871532.gif (2MB, 235x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 235x240px

>>84112405

>>84111707
How many attempts is this now? I wonder when Universal will realize that nobody outside of people like James Rolfe give a shit about the classic monsters. Decades of being generic Halloween decoration fodder has made them into a joke. They're too iconic for their own good.

>>84112352
OK, so we're going to be trusting people who pull random numbers out of their asses to "prove" that The Mummy is doing poorly?
>>84112284 and >>84111958 say otherwise.

reminder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRqxyqjpOHs

>>84111638
what was that about WB not being confident in their movie again? mouse cucks kept saying it made money because of being on a dry spell, but the movie is set during times when Transformers and Tom Cruise can take a chunk out of their ass.

>>84111638
Yeah, no. I really doubt you fucking nerds care that much about DC or Marvel movies since the're all fucking shit anyway.

>>84108858
how much is Wonder Woman going to lose? because we all know that shit didnt break even

>>84112529
People liked Brendan's Mummy.

>>84112529
Now is the best time to try and cash in desu
You see people dropping money like there's no tomorrow for these half-assed cape shit. If the Godzilla and Kong universe is also making dosh then they can as well.

>>84111533
What a cute man.

>>84112550
>Reminder
Of what?
>>84112633
>People liked Brendan's mummy so the studio should have shoehorned him into a movie that's neither a reboot nor retconn of his films
Is this autism?

>>84112698
Holy strawman, Batman.

File: 1497323920931.jpg (337KB, 1363x663px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1363x663px

>>84112676
DON'T YOU EVER TALK TO ME OR MY WAIFU EVER AGAIN

>>84112653
I think the only reason the kaijuverse is getting by is because it's being propped up by China. IIRC, Kong just kind of did "ok" in the box office.

>>84112529
It's not that, it's the reinvention attempts, plus the age of Cruise + his inability to be cast in anything except vehicles for his persona.

I want the iconic Dracula, the iconic Frankenstein. If capeshit fucked with its characters silhouettes as much as Universal is, nobody would be interested.

>>84112698
>Of what?
did you not click the link?

File: brendan before after.jpg (35KB, 600x379px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x379px

>just as the Curse is lifted from Brendan
like pottery

>>84111533
Why didn't they get an African to play an Egyptian?

>>84112617
They've 800 grams of anti-matter on just the marketing anon. Do the math.

>>84112774
are you calling her white?

>>84112461
Pretty sure the film only gets ticket revenue and the theater gets concessions in the u.s

File: 1381290369326.png (248KB, 449x500px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 449x500px

>>84112087
>Alex Kurtzman
him and Roberto Orci should stop getting work. They are poison

>>84108858
How many Universal executives do you think have lost jobs over this Dark Universe fiasco?

>>84112791
well she aint black thats for sure

>>84112791
She's not a real Egyptian.

>>84112797
Disregard that post I didn't read all of the original.

>>84112087
>Phantom of the Opera
I've wanted a new, non-musical version for quite some time and it's going to be some kind of monster Avengers flick? Fucking hell

>>84112772
holy shit. young brendan looked like a model.

current brendan looks like he's melting under the hot sun.

>>84112269
>cinematic universe with a bunch of guys already well into their 50s

>>84112774
because ancient egyptians werent black africans

>>84112862
Their maturity along with being film vets will guide this universe into a good place.

File: frankenstein vs wolfman.jpg (49KB, 300x604px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 300x604px

>>84112862
Universal already had a shared universe back in the 30s and 40s with grumpy wrinkly middle aged men.

>>84108858
So his career is over right?

>>84108858
>>84112284
Right now the Mummy has made
57 million domestic
237 million overseas

Which means that that the revenue for the studio from the movie is 90-100 million depending on the fine details on the contracts.

The movie cost 125 million, plus had promotion costs. Combined with the fact that Tom Cruse may very well have gotten a percentage of revenue even the 40-50 million they will earn from DVD/Streaming/TV sales over the next ten years they are still going to be struggling to break even.

>>84112756
>Trailer of no sound effects and music
>It has sound effects and music at the end
?
>>84112819
None because as far as we know it made a 200 million surplus.

File: nefertiti.jpg (31KB, 497x750px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 497x750px

>>84112892
the evidence shows they were

File: 7f5.png (413KB, 736x665px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 736x665px

>ancient egyptian mummy
>isn't black

Holy fuck, why is it hard for you guys to accept that the movie flopped

>>84108927
>International box office is solid but it bombed here.
But I thought foreigners were supposed to be smarter and more cultured than 'muricans.
Guess they're retarded normies.

>>84112774
She is from Algeria, close enough. Also ancient Egyptians weren't as black as nowdays.Even in their ancient art we see big range of skin colors. Wealthy ones seemed to be bit brighter, many servants and slaves are marked much darker skin, probably they were taken from deeper African territories.

>>84112945
>>Trailer of no sound effects and music
The character's voices you mean.
>at the end
Yeah.

Did you seriously miss out months ago when Universal accidentally released a hilarious sound effect-less trailer of the movie?

>lets make the mummy a strong independent woman

Why are Jews so fucking stupid but also so fucking smarT?

File: IMG_3134.jpg (63KB, 630x330px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 630x330px

CRASHING THIS FRANCHISE

WITH NO SURVIVORS

>>84112981
Doesn't mean anything if the movie loses money.
>>84112945
>200 million surplus
see
>>84111574

at best it will lose 50 million.

>>84111483
/thread

>>84111533
I already jacked it to the stills of her on set enough already

I'm over her.

>>84113031

>>84111574

>>84112934
Well no, according to Wikipedia it had a budget of 125 million, and http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Mummy-The-(2017)#tab=summary says total box office was 293.
>B-But Wikipedia
Literally as valid of a source as some random ass site also not affiliated with Universal.
>B-But muh marketing
I honestly have seen no marketing for this movie. And with ~168 million wiggle room, at worst it broke even.
And as you yourself stated this isn't going to include DVD/BluRay/digital sales.

>>84111958
Rekt

fa/tv/irgins on suicide watch

>>84112945
>>84112550
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuWQsanUBXY

>>84113058
not an argument

>>84112087
A remake of Bride before we've been introduced to the monster? They're repeating DC's error - you can't assume people give a shit about ancilliary lore before they know what YOUR version of the core material will be like. Getting Condon is an interesting idea, as he made Gods and Monsters, the biopic of James Whale with BRENDAN FRASER - he's haunting Universal's dreams! But if the film isn't going to simply recreate Whale's aesthetic - and to be honest, it could do a lot worse, Condon's own style is usually more neutrally classical than Whale's was, unusually for a contemporary director - then why get Whale's screen biographer?

>>84113122
how meta

File: 1497979233206.jpg (135KB, 1000x560px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1000x560px

>>84112269

>>84113124
>A remake of Bride before we've been introduced to the monster?
Please.

File: don keks.jpg (18KB, 280x350px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 280x350px

>>84111533
When your leading man looks more mummified than your Mummy, you've got problems!

File: 1494819870760.jpg (64KB, 483x807px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 483x807px

>>84113104
At least they're not reusing the wilhelm scream.

>>84113124
everyone and their mom knows frankenstein m8, more so than any DC hero.

>>84111707

The original Universal monsters are some of my favorite movies ever made. This Dark Universe bullshit is clearly not meant for fans of the originals. It evidently doesn't appeal to casual moviegoers, too. Who the fuck are these movies for?

>>84113124
Frankenstein's tale has been told a million times already in multiple versions, including a recently released Victor Frankenstein movie. It's better to go through a not-as-common tale, which is a sequel that's considered better than the original Frankenstein.

File: now_what.jpg (34KB, 700x714px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 700x714px

>>84113184
>When your leading man looks more mummified than your Mummy, you've got problems!
Did you even watch the movie? Tom Cruise is the real mummy in the end.

>>84113124
I'd agree if Frankenstein wasn't universally known.

>>84113251
Action movie fans that watch Transformers.

>>84113079
Anon. you do not understand.
I am not disagreeing with you on box office totals
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=mummy2016.htm

Goes over the totals in detail.

What you are not understanding is that the movie studio does NOT get all the income from the box office, as the Movie theatre gets it cut.

That why the domestic/Internaional sales are important.

Domestic (US) sales the studios collect almost 50% of the sales in the first two weeks. Overseas the rule of thumb is generally 30%.

Thus in the overall, the studio only has gotten about 90-100 million at most from it.

>>84113298
In addition, they have spent close to 100 million in promotion. which means that they are still about 125 million in the hole. They will get 40 million or so from other sales, which means they are still something like 85 million from breaking even.

>>84113153
Please what? We don't know how this monster will play, and we're jumping midway into his story. If you're saying "we all know who he is" - only from movies that stopped being made in 1948. We need to see this version first before we get interested in his Bride. Also, if they're going to make a girl power thing out of such an alien character, like the report I just read implied, calling her "a very modern woman", this will be worthless.

Mind you, I guess the Bride was like modern women - weird hair, no sense of who's in her league and who isn't, inarticulate, ill-equipped for the world.

>>84113298
>Overseas the rule of thumb is generally 30%.
Wrong, it depends on each movie but blockbusters usually gets 45% AT LEAST. German movie theathers almost reject AoU when Disney wanted to lower their standard 60% (Meaning that Disney wanted more than 40%), the same way Mexican movie theathers never projected Suicide Squad because DC/Warner modified deal before release, so they cancelled all projections.

>>84113267
Yeah, but he's wizened as fuck from the start and throughout. He's too old for the role.

>>84111533
She's handsome for a man.

>>84113079
Anon, you do know the studios only get at most 50% of the box office right? It less overseas

>>84113286

It doesn't appeal to them either.

File: rich_uncle_moneybags.jpg (108KB, 250x254px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 250x254px

>>84113286
>implying Transformers isn't Kino in disguise

>>84112529
>Decades of being generic Halloween decoration fodder has made them into a joke. They're too iconic for their own good.
Why do you think they're making these movies
essentially action flicks with monsters in them?

>>84113398
>If you're saying "we all know who he is" - only from movies that stopped being made in 1948.
what the fuck are you talking about, he gets constant adaptations (including a recent one less than 2 years ago) and appearances, Frankenstein is part of popular culture, he's the monster that least needs introduction.

File: dont_understand.jpg (29KB, 346x346px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 346x346px

>>84113423
>too old for being a mummy

>>84111894
People do kind of get a bit retarded about marketing tbphwyf. Studios account for marketing but as a matter of accounting the production budget and marketing are different departments. Like Marvel likely has a yearly marketing budget for all of it's shit. Then production is separate. Yeah it's good to guess how much they also spent on marketing to figure out how much money they made or lost technically, but the studios generally are more concerned with return on production (except for if it's profitable, then they focus on all expenses possible to fuck over people with back end deals).

>>84113398
No we don't, Frankenstein is a tale everyone knows and has seen. It's like saying ''hurr they need make a movie for every classic monster before they make Monster Squad back in 1987''.

>>84113267
Don't try to pull a clever joke, you very well know that the girl is a mummy and that Tom only transforms into one at the end after stabbing himself with the magic mummy-turning knife.

>>84113272
So are Batman and the Joker, Suicide Squad still didn't work. If you say you're starting from scratch and then you drop people midway into the action of your universe...

The three versions of Frankenstein widely known to Western audiences are from 1931-45, 1957-74 and 1994. Which of these are we meant to be familiar with before we see Bride? The first, I guess, it's the core template, and it's Universal. But then, why are we meant to go and see a reimagining of films hardly anyone at this point watches except out of duty? And I say that as someone who loves them and has no interest in modern horror films. There are cults of young people on tumblr who are really into classic monsters, just as there are for a lot of silent stars and directors, but Universal wouldn't think they could make a profitable theatrical movie out of, say, The Louise Brooks Story. Classic monsters are niche stuff at this point, they're hoping to get a huge turnover from a reimagining of a film from *82* years ago. (There was an 80s semi-remake with Sting but nobody counts that.)

Also, why the fuck do they have Jekyll and Hyde, who was never a Universal monster, but no Creature from the Black Lagoon?

>>84113549
>but the studios generally are more concerned with return on production
Says who? They're losing money and credibility if they don't make back marketing costs as well. That's why GB is considered a failure despite doing much better than its production costs indicate.

>>84113490
Not this version. We don't know the style, and we know not neccesarily to expect the classic silhouette after they just remade the Fraser Mummy with a 90-something guy in the lead.

>>84113691
>Not this version.
Doesn't matter, everyone knows what Frankenstein is, doesn't stop people from making crossovers prior to making standalone films focused on their versions of each character like Monster Squad.

>>84113492
No, too old to be anything else. If it had been about a sexy young archeologist played by Sofia Boutella who discovers the mummy of Tom Cruise, that would have made more sense.

>>84113729
He has a point

>>84113721
Everyone knows what The Mummy is, the new film looks nothing like it.

Like Monster Squad that nobody gives a fuck about except ultra-nerds. They need normie dollars.

>>84113691
>>84113398
>>84113124
Marvel made the extremely succesful Avengers without making standalone films for Hawkeye or Black Widow.

>>84108858
CHINA HELP

>>84113754
Thank you!

>>84113782
>Hawkeye or Black Widow.
But you know who black widow is From Iron man and Hawkeye from Thor.

>>84113764
>Everyone knows what The Mummy is, the new film looks nothing like it.
The Mummy has been multiple dudes, there's no one true character, and the one everyone (alive) remembers is the Brendan mummy who is a magic entity that can create disasters and summon warrior servants. Very unlike Frankenstein which is always one of 2 things: the lumbering zombie retard from Universal films or more uncommonly character from the book who is a generally smart, vocal person.

>>84111049
capebrain: smal
mummybrain: big

>>84113858
And you'll know who Frankenstein is from the past century of pop culture or even if you were born yesterday, from the upcoming movie.

>>84113782
No, the comparison would be making Iron Man 2 before Iron Man. Also, they didn't fuck with the iconography, whereas The Mummy (2017) looks like a slightly underbudgeted remake of The Mummy (1998), and next they're remaking something from 1935. We don't have any grounds for assuming how it will look. Jumping into an unknown iteration of the mythos and counting on the shit you look nothing like to create synergy for it is foolhardy.

>>84113764
>the new film looks nothing like it.
you do know the most popular conception of the movie mummy right now is the Stephen Sommers one which does paranormal shit similar to the one in the new movie?

>>84113899
Only if they go with the boring pop culture version that can only be used today for comedic relief. If they wanted to go more of a Shelly version that would require a movie.

>>84113876
The iconic Mummy is Kharis from the 40s movies rather than Karloff's original. This version is scarcely less iconic than the Universal Frankenstein's monster.

You've hit on my point - what recent basis do they have for the monster? If they have none, and they're remaking the classic look in a movie which is meant to draw dimes from normal people... if the excitement is literally meant to be generated by the ancient template, I don't have much hope for their success. If they use the title, which means little to modern viewers, to launch something entirely different... it's like they're shafting two audiences, neither of whom are really there.

>>84113936
>No, the comparison would be making Iron Man 2 before Iron Man
Except the Avengers is also a continuation of the Iron Man story, it's the same point. They put in characters whose versions we didn't know about in the movie.
>they're remaking something from 1935.
The bride is a pop culture icon as well and we already know it's not gonna be like the 1935 version.

Again, everyone knows the Frankenstein story, making ANOTHER remake would be retarded and tiresome, it's much better and fresher to make Bride which is a different story using characters everyone knows. The past century of pop culture is enough for the public to know about the character as much as a new movie would, it's not like people didn't watch the 2 billion Frankenstein movies since.
>>84113982
Nope, serious Frankenstein has existed in movies for a long time, including one released less than 2 years ago.

>>84113936
The comparison would be making The Wasp before Ant Man, or making a Hermione/Luna Lovegood before making HP movies.

>>84113982
I half-agree. I think the pop culture version could still work, if its seriousness was restablished, which would take a film. Mary Shelley's original doesn't work for genre film, as I think Branagh's version proved - just giving him a little of his articulacy totally changes the genre. Frankenstein the book should have been filmed by an art cinema director - it's basically a philosophical discussion with some scenic passages.

>>84114087
>one released less than 2 years ago.
Seen by whom? I don't remember it.

File: brendan fraser roasts the mummy.jpg (112KB, 803x599px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 803x599px

i'm laffin m8

>>84114080
>The iconic Mummy is Kharis from the 40s movies rather than Karloff's original.
Are you seriously claiming that one is more known than the fraser one? Please. Nobody remembers the Karloff one, especially since the sequels were all about the mummy turning into a mindless killer. That's why the Fraser one had nothing to do with the original (besides the name) as well as the new movie.
>You've hit on my point - what recent basis do they have for the monster?
Every Frankenstein movie ever, including one released less than 2 years ago? Frankenstein's appearances aren't that different depending on the tone you know. If it's a comedy then he's the classic universal lumbering retard and if it's serious then he's usually the character from the book.
>if the excitement is literally meant to be generated by the ancient template,
The template is the one that's used by pop culture all the time including constant movies. Everyone fucking knows frankenstein so it's fresher to do one based on a less known movie monster that's also a pop culture icon.

>>84114087
No, because we follow the characters we know into the company of those we don't. We have not met these versions before.

>The bride is a pop culture icon as well and we already know it's not gonna be like the 1935 version.

Not to anything like the same extent, and either these characters are played out and overfamiliar or they're not. You seem to be saying they're both.


>it's not like people didn't watch the 2 billion Frankenstein movies since.

In none of which the Bride appears.

>>84114087
>They put in characters whose versions we didn't know about in the movie.
>Thor
Already a movie released
>Cap America
Movie released
>Nick Fury
Multiple cameos
>Hawkeye
Couple scenes in Thor
>Black Widow
Scenes and proper introduction in IM2
>Hulk
Movie released
>Swedish Professor
Scenes in Thor
>Loki
Villain from Thor
>Coulson
Multiple cameos

The only one we didn't know about were Maria Hill and Thanos, and the first is a secondary character and the second was a cliffhanger end credit scene.

File: 220px-Frankenstein's_monster_(Boris_Karloff).jpg (12KB, 220x276px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 220x276px

>>84114087
>Nope, serious Frankenstein has existed in movies for a long time, including one released less than 2 years ago.
Yet no one watched that one. Its hardly the Ironic Frankenstein.

If you want to skip a Frankenstein movie, you are going to have to go very pop culture-ish with the Frankenstein monster. Or you can establish it as something not the same.

When you make your "Gang of monsters" film you can build up 1 character without it being a mess.

>>84114227
I just said it isn't the Karloff one people remember. I said that in the sentence you quoted. The iconic Mummy is the (not quite) mindless killer.

>less than 3 years ago
Nobody knows what movie you're referring to, and no film that attempts to use the articulate monster has ever been successful.

>less known
>icon
Choose one, you cretinous shill.

>>84114159
Bruh, you can remove it from history and it still wouldn't matter because Frankenstein is eternal, every fucking tv show's halloween special has people dressed up as classic movie monsters because they expect the viewer to know about them.
>>84114242
>No, because we follow the characters we know into the company of those we don't. We have not met these versions before.
So what? Everyone already knows them, everyone expects Frankenstein to be in a particular way if this is a serious movie just like the billion previous Frankenstein movies.
>Not to anything like the same extent
Still known, people have made adaptations of way less known things.
>In none of which the Bride appears.
So? That's what this film is going to be about, duh.
>>84114275
Point was they didn't have a standalone movie of their own, they were completely unknown yet they were still added to movies before getting their own.
>>84114287
>Yet no one watched that one
Cause it sucked, that's a different thing.

>If you want to skip a Frankenstein movie, you are going to have to go very pop culture-ish with the Frankenstein monster.
Bullshit, serious frankenstein is almost always the one featured in frankenstein movies. If that weren't the case people wouldn't do serious frankenstein in the first place like the one in Van Helsing.
>When you make your "Gang of monsters" film you can build up 1 character without it being a mess.
Monster Squad existed without them making films for those characters.

>>84114311
If you where going with a "smart" Frankenstein monster you would be better off dropping off the Frankenstein part of it. Just make him a created being.


Hell, you would have more success doing that with a amnesia plot of him trying to figure out his creator then calling it Frankenstein when people expect campy silliness.

>>84114311
>I just said it isn't the Karloff one people remember.
But that's the point, people DON'T remember the Karloff one, people remember the Fraser one. If you watch a review of the Karloff one usually the reviewer is gonna mention something like ''don't expect crazy effects and magic powers, this mummy is tame''.
>Nobody knows what movie you're referring to, and
Victor Frankenstein.
>no film that attempts to use the articulate monster has ever been successful
What? You mean the serious frankenstein? See: Mary Shelley's frakenstein and Van Helsing which were commercial successes, and obvious Universal is gonna care more about the money than reviews.

>less known
>icon
>Choose one, you cretinous shill.
I have no idea what you're trying to say.

>>84114375
>Bullshit, serious frankenstein is almost always the one featured in frankenstein movies.
Not that anyone remembers.

When people think Frankenstein monster, they think of a specific type. At best it going to be something like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFPcsYGriEs

>>84114506
>Not that anyone remembers.
Says who?

>>84114311
people make Dracula movies without the Lugosi accent and mannerisms even though that's his most known version.

really there shouldn't be a problem even if Bride of Frankenstein never existed, it's an alternate story using familiar characters, and just like any adaptation you can expect changes but the base story is there and everyone knows it.

and it's not like you have to follow the original either as the fraser mummy proved which is like a high fantasy blockbuster version of the karloff one.

really, what issue is there? what matters is that the movie is good.

>>84114546
Says I.

If you asked 100 people what Frankenstine was, 90percent or more would say the monster, not the creator.

Also that same 90+% would think of him as a large man built from old flesh who has electrodes on the side of his neck.

>>84114696
To be fair, Dracula has a much greater range of variations then say, Frankenstein. It does help that you have films like Bram Stoker's Dracula that made tons of money and was seen by a lot of people.

>>84114746
more popular version doesn't mean anything, that's why you can make something as crazy and detached from the original as the Fraser Mummy and still call it The Mummy. All that matters is that people remember the character, anyone can tell that a story is going to be more serious and features a known character, then that character is going to be serious too.

That's why people make serious Frankenstein versions in movies like Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Van Helsing.

Also that whole ''frankenstein isn't the monster'' is petty, colloquially that's what he's referred to and if you think about it, there's no reason not to call him as such since he is the ''son'' of Victor, the monser calls him father too.

>>84108858
It is odd to me that this movie is getting the ass taken out of it.

I liked it. A lesser Cruise film but still not bad. The trailers hurt. They got worse and worse, making it look like the end of Suicide Squad.

7/10

File: 1398760292944.gif (2MB, 158x158px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 158x158px

>>84112529
>Decades of being generic Halloween decoration fodder has made them into a joke.

>>84114852
You can make a frankenstine monster that is not a lumbering idiot - I am not disagreeing with that.

Just that if you show up and say "its Frankenstein monster" without any establishment of the character and it doesn't meet the pop culture mold you are going to have a hard time.

or the TL:DR version is this.

If you are going to make a "Gang of monsters" movies, and you want to include Frankenstein monster, you have to do one of two things.

1. accept the pop culture monster
2. do something else

and if you do something else you have to establish what your Frankenstein monster is. By another movie or making your group monster movie a stealth origin film.

I am not saying audiences will not accept a non-pop culture Frankenstein, but you have to establish what he is then. And at that point you might be better off putting the same story in another skin.

>>84108858
They really advertised this movie horribly, made it feel like they were pulling a ghost busters on people with the female mummy but it turns out Tom Cruise becomes the mummy.

I didn't see it in theaters because I thought it was going to be another ghost busters female gender bend for political brownie points.

File: 1383908238433.jpg (49KB, 402x402px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 402x402px

>>84115184
>we get to see tom cruise again in the Monster Avengers
awesome!

>>84115094
>Just that if you show up and say "its Frankenstein monster" without any establishment of the character and it doesn't meet the pop culture mold you are going to have a hard time.
Disregarding the fact that most Frankenstein appearances in movies is the serious version, again, Fraser Mummy changed the shit out of the original and is now the more popular version.
>and if you do something else you have to establish what your Frankenstein monster is.

No doubt Bride of Frankenstein is gonna have a little intro at the beginning showing Frankenstein being put together, that's the part everyone knows. I mean we already know it's not gonna be like the original Bride of Frankenstein which was 99% Frankenstein and 1% Bride at the last scene so it might as well be a new story.

Again, adaptations always change things around, and with a frankenstein one the audience should already know the character himself and what to expect, even if he's smart or not, people will realize this is a more serious version of the usual pop culture icon since that's kind of a given when you're talking about a serious, hundred million dollar hollywood movie.

File: anna-kendrick-2087909399.jpg (137KB, 1000x1504px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1000x1504px

>>84112033
that's not anna. anna's face needs no fixing. a CUTE.

Universal is fucking retarded
having Brendan would have atleast ensured them some nostalgiabux

>>84115245
>Fraser Mummy changed the shit out of the original and is now the more popular version.
Yes, but Fraser mummy was it own film, not some movie where a half dozens monsters show up and here comes the mummy and it is the fraiser mummy.

>>84112811
I agree ... but this Mummy movie was not bad. I enjoyed it.

File: 5dab57845645eb96c155c814f8ffd86c.jpg (42KB, 320x480px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 320x480px

>>84112861
young brendan was literally chad thundercock

>>84112653
How long will it take for the Extended Universe meme to stop being profitable?

>>84114375
>Bullshit, serious frankenstein is almost always the one featured in frankenstein movies

No, never.

>Monster Squad

Which only horror nerds know or care about. They're spending capeshit money, they need mainstream audiences.

>>84115301
>Why isn't a studio mixing universes up
Gee I dunno. Why doesn't Paramount want nuTrek mixing up with old trek?
Really gets the old noggin joggin.

>>84114502
No, neither of those were successes by the standards of the multiplex.

I mean that you're either unfamiliar or iconic. You can't have an unfamiliar icon.

The Mummy everyone remembers is Kharis, the 40s one. That's the guy wrapped in bandages walking slowly but implacably to kill people.

>>84108858
I was on board to watch a new Mummy flick with Tom Cruise in it but the Mummy cunt itself looked boring and ugly as fuck.
The mummy needs to be a fucking monster not some roastie belly dancer.

>>84114939
You can blame critic numales for that one.
When the film first came out, a lot of them were using wonder woman as an excuse for their shit opinions.
>M-Muh age of wonder woman
>The female shouldn't be the villain
>reeeee why isn't this film progressive reeeeee sexism reeeeeee

>>84114696
The character is familiar from one movie, Dracula is familiar from dozens.

File: 1497322626603.webm (586KB, 1280x532px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 1280x532px

>>84115847
You shut your whore mouth.

File: tumblr_inline_n844ftUF261s5x70l.gif (2MB, 238x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 238x360px

>>84112772
The Harder They Come

>>84115094
>and if you do something else you have to establish what your Frankenstein monster is. By another movie or making your group monster movie a stealth origin film.
>I am not saying audiences will not accept a non-pop culture Frankenstein, but you have to establish what he is then. And at that point you might be better off putting the same story in another skin.

This.

>>84108858
NOBODY SAW THIS COMING! WHAT AN UPSET!

>>84112155
>5 million is important
found the poorfag

>>84115245
>Again, adaptations always change things around, and with a frankenstein one the audience should already know the character himself and what to expect, even if he's smart or not, people will realize this is a more serious version of the usual pop culture icon since that's kind of a given when you're talking about a serious, hundred million dollar hollywood movie.

Oh right, so you *are* just a cretinous shill. I hope you're not one of those people who shills unpaid, suppressing all critical thought.

>>84115632
Five weeks.

>>84115915
I wanted a superhuman corpse going around fucking shit up. A sentient zombie with magic powers. Show her true face in exposition scenes or at the end or whatever, thats fine. But don't just have the monster be some cunt in facepaint.
Worst fucking villain in recent history.

>>84113006

WAS MAKING A MOVIE NOBODY ASKED FOR PART OF YOUR PLAN?

File: 1495139587105.png (410KB, 733x510px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 733x510px

>>84116083
>I wanted a superhuman corpse going around fucking shit up
She did exactly that.
>A sentient zombie with magic powers
She is.
>Show her true face in exposition scenes or at the end or whatever, thats fine
They did that too, her face wasn't completely un-rotted until the very end.
>But don't just have the monster be some cunt in facepaint
You didn't even watch the movie.

>>84112985
>Egyptians weren't as black as nowdays

Modern Egyptians are just Arabs.

File: 1474204081726.png (582KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 600x600px

>>84116215
>he went to see the Tom Cruise movie

serves him right for those dumb spotify ads

>>84116215
>You didn't even watch the movie.
You're right, I didn't, because it looked like trash with no monster.

>>84108858
The Brendan Fraser curse. Give him the franchise back!!!! Brendan is the true mummy!!!!

>>84108858
His skin looks like parchment, but this is meant to be him in a normal scene.

>>84116336
>he criticizes movies he hasn't seen
t. /tv/

>>84114137
Should get whoever directed The Sunset Limited. Great camerawork and direction for what was literally two men talking in a single room.

>>84115847
I had similar fears as you, anon.
Things turned out better than expected.

>trailer is cancer

File: 1497322445646.png (718KB, 1066x440px) Image search: [Google]

718KB, 1066x440px

>>84116336
>Implying I care about Cruse
I only watch it because of Sofia.

>>84108858
Aging is so hard for effeminate homosexuals. The butch ones can roll with it, but for the ones who play the goil, it's tough.

File: 1430958456987.gif (646KB, 512x481px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 512x481px

>>84116514
>he paid money to masturbate

>>84111533
>35 years old

how.png

File: trumpwillwin2016.png (867KB, 810x1042px) Image search: [Google]

867KB, 810x1042px

>>84111958
>the same kinds of people who claimed Trump wouldn't win

why are internet media statisticians such shit?

>>84116681
Trump had a clear appeal, a low-budget version of the Fraser Mummy starring an aged, aged old man does not.

>>84116336
One day Tom Cruise started being in really good movies. I didn't like him. I still don't like him as a person. I cannot deny that I dig his movies now. Even this one. His agent/he has good taste in scripts.

Fuck all that Risky Business and Top Gun shit. Valkyrie, Oblivion, Edge of Tomorrow, and even some Mission Impossible. Fuck, I even liked that first Jack Reacher film.

The 2nd Jack Reacher was a step down in Cruise stuff. This film is also a bit less than the high standard he has had for the last few decades but still enjoyable.

If you just hate Cruise to hate him then you are missing some decent movies.

>>84108858
If universal's new cinematic universe dies on its arse its actually the best thing for Cruise.

Instead of wasting time on this shite he can return to Mission Impossible which has consistently been beating Bond movies at their own game in recent years. And I heard there was a sequel to edge of tomorrow/live die repeat on the cards too.

Fuck this Dark Universe, even the last true movie star couldn't get people invested in this cynical shite.

File: 1479885990618.jpg (20KB, 225x222px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 225x222px

>>84108858
noone wanted to see a mummy movie without Brendan Fraser.

Nothing against Cruise who is great at his craft, but action movies I've noticed are where you can really find Brendan Fraser in his element.

>>84111744
underrated

>>84116791
I hate him because he has no likeable qualities and if the director isn't big/prestigous enough he'll turn the movie into the same generic Cruise movie as usual. There used to be a certain kind of generic Cruise movie. Now there's a different kind, but the result is the same - if you cast him, your movie is kill for people who don't like that and Cruise's repetoire of facial expressions.

Eyes Wide Shut was great. War of the Worlds was acceptable as craft. The Color of Money was okay because he knew he was no. 2 and Newman was the man. Everything else he's done, I see a few seconds and I know it's not worth watching.

>>84116791
>>84116821
Reddit spacing there. You got misbriefed, Dianeticsfag.

File: not quite.jpg (51KB, 1018x761px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1018x761px

>>84116870
Yes but Fraser Mummy is all laugh-a-minute scooby doo jump scare scenes.

>ancient mystical spirit-creature rolls for initiative
>wins initiative
>first action: ATTACK? nope
>first action: roar and shake arms around for elaborate "boo"? YES
>continue being somehow LESS sophisticated than Xena

>>84117074
Yeah, it's enjoyable to watch.

>>84112269
>all the tall guys have to sit so Tom can look like an adult

>There were other ways that “The Mummy” was transformed from a scary summer popcorn movie into a standard-issue Tom Cruise vehicle. The actor personally commissioned two other writers along with McQuarrie to crank out a new script. Two of the film’s three credited screenwriters, McQuarrie and Dylan Kussman, an actor-writer who played small roles in “The Mummy” and “Jack Reacher,” were close allies of Cruise’s. The script envisioned Nick Morton as an earnest Tom Cruise archetype, who is laughably described as a “young man” at one point.

>His writers beefed up his part. In the original script, Morton and the Mummy (played by Sofia Boutella) had nearly equal screen time. The writers also added a twist that saw Cruise’s character become possessed, to give him more of a dramatic arc. Even though Universal executives weren’t thrilled about the story — which feels disjointed and includes Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll — they went along with Cruise’s vision.

>And the crew fell in line too, behind Cruise as the boss. “This is very much a film of two halves: before Tom and after Tom,” said Frank Walsh, the supervising art director, at a London screening of “The Mummy” this week.


https://variety.com/2017/film/news/the-mummy-meltdown-tom-cruise-1202465742/

>>84117118
>Implyiing they were all there at the same time
That's photoshopped, my man. They just rescaled everyone.

No.84111533
i can people think she is hot, even more a north african she is meh

>>84117020
I don't like EWS. I consider that to be before the event horizon of Cruise's quality years. Same with Color of Money. The shit years.

I agree that his WotW was acceptable craft. Not a great movie but ...

He should produce 007 movies. Much better grasp of high adventure than the average exec/producer/director. Also is better at comedy integration than most. Fraser Mummys knew nothing of this and ended up as half assed comedies instead of action or horror.

>>84117074
And that is why everyone still remembers those movies fondly.

Heck, I still kek at this scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hU_gQfQY1w

They don't make movies like that anymore, and it is sad.

>>84112088
holy shit the guy in the right is from spartacus!!!!

>>84112269
you mean DEAD UNIVERSE?

File: 1273167216678.png (65KB, 400x319px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 400x319px

>>84117208
>>84117236

>>84117231
Oh god so fucking hila-
wait
stupid
>not heard: comedic"booowwwm" sound effect

>>84117392
Just because you are dead inside doesn't mean that others can't enjoy a fun moment.

>>84117231
>movies like that
I like old Disney movies and the like but this was supposed to be Raiders-esque.

It is sad that they don't make them like that anymore. Last one I saw that I liked of that ilk was Jackie Chan's Around the World in 80 Days. A lost Genre. One that The Mummy mishandled.

>>84117231
>Language of the slaves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDWR5RkWRTY

>>84117392
It's not meant to be hilarious though. It's an exaggerated event designed to quickly illustrate some key character traits.

>>84116629
She's not white that's how.

>>84117514
It's absurd and belongs in a feel good love story along the lines of Mary Poppins or Cat in the Hat. They should have gone full on Abbot and Costello with this instead of being all at once a mediocre action, bad horror, and bad comedy movie.

Failed to split the genres. Should have chosen one.

>>84117514
>>84117791
I disagree, it supposed to be funny at that point. The Mummy was a hit, and still sells well for a movie of its age due to the fact that it was one of the last few fun action films that had comedy, a little romance, some action, and you left with a smile on your face. Kinda like why the first American Treasure movie was such a big hit.

>>84111750
>it just opened in places like China and other countries.
It's the second weekend it's been out there. And Transformers is coming so it won't make much more than what it already has.
Keep in mind the studio gets a far lesser cut of the international box office than the domestic one, where it bombed pretty fucking hard.
So yeah, saying it will lose 95 million is probably some Hollywood accounting bullshit, but it certainly wasn't a hit.

File: 1495832995686.jpg (11KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 251x242px

>>84116786
WOULD YOU FUCKING AUTISTS STOP WITH THIS SHIT
IT'S NOT A FRASER MUMMY RETCONN OR REBOOT

>>84117231
They still do make movies like that, the movies just don't get the high funding that made The Mummy capable of not looking like shit.

>>84111750
I want to cum on Kaguya's cute bare feet!

File: 1493221987885.jpg (78KB, 639x849px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 639x849px

>>84117514
>It's not meant to be comedy
>Now let me explain to you how it's comedy

>>84118055
>>84117838
They make movies like that still.
Mission impossible franchise and man from uncle for example.

>>84118204
I didn't know Man from Uncle was like that. Will have to check it out.

>>84112269
They plan on having the Rock as Wolfman.

Its like theyre trying to ruin the franchise before it has a chance.

>>84118204
The MI movies are nowhere near the silly comedy, they're all just a reason for Cruise to make highly extravagant stunts. Man From Uncle did approach it at some points but still kept it serious enough to not really qualify either. There were the gadget-gags but that's not exactly like screaming back at a mummy or chucking a cat at it as a defence.

>>84118313
Cool scare mongering bro. I really liked the part where you gave a source.

File: 1431560648630.jpg (34KB, 326x398px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 326x398px

>>84118176

>>84112269
>Depp doing his usual Jack-Sparrow-With-Another-Accent acting
>except they green-screen out his face and hands so it's just an empty suit doing all the exaggerated movements
>it's in-character because the character is supposed to be turning erratic and unhinged

It's insane but it could work.

>>84118342
litterally type in the rock and wolfman and youll get a shit ton of articles. I'd post one but I'm sure whatever i put up youd shit on the source and say its bs. So make the judgement yourself, like i said theres a shit ton of articles saying theyve been eyeing him for the part.

Im hoping they dont, I feel like the people the rock draws in arnt really the same people that would be drawn into seeing a movie like wolfman. Idk though. maybe if he was just the wolfman when he transforms then itd be different, but i strongly doubt they would do it that way.

I just cant see him doing the part. Its supposed to be an emotional role, someone thats always miserable because of the curse they have. Like the way Mark Ruffalo plays Bruce Banner, or even Del Toro as wolfman. I just cant see the rock playing a character like that. Maybe if he only played the wolfman when hes transformed, that could be really cool, but i cant see him wanting to do a role where his face wont be shown and I cant see him playing the human side of the character

>>84118462
The Invisible Man is the one movie I'm waiting for, he was my favorite monster as a kid.
Invisible Man > Frankenstein > The Mummy > Wolf Man > Dracula >>>>>>>>Creature from the Black Lagoon

>>84118931
Wolfman was always my favorite. He scared be and fascinated me. Lagoon creature seemed cool cause he was like the weirdest creature out of all of them. So id look forward to seeing how they do that character in a reboot.

Wolfman>Dracula>Creature Black Lagoon>Frankenstein>Invisible Man

>>84118580
Even if we ignore the acting-aspect entirely then it seems a mistake to hire such a huge man to play the role. Seeing a normal guy turn into a hairy beast is part of the punch the transformation has. The juxtaposition of the well-mannered ordinary man turning into a raging monster. The Rock is too fucking big to fit in that type of role. It's like seeing the Hulk turn a bit hairier. And hiring him to play the beast also makes it a bit too much like the Hulk, with the character growing and all. If anything they really should eschew convention and make the wolfman look like a mangy wolf, to emphasis the curse part.


>>84118931
>>>>>>>>Creature from the Black Lagoon

You're just basing it on how scary the creatures were, aren't you? Creature had stellar cinematography for the underwater stuff that actually wouldn't look out-of-place today. The only way to make a modern version of it that wouldn't look cheap and paltry in comparison would be to hire Cameron to shoot it with even more great underwater scenes with newer technology.

>>84112617
>Entering its 4th week, it's got the 3rd biggest domestic gross and the 65th WW gross.
WHAT A FUCKING BOMB!

>>84116253
Which are 90% whites 10% negro.
Back then egyptians were 100% whites from recent DNA studies.

>>84112617
The only movies a threat to Wonder Woman is Transformers, an already established global behemoth, and Iron Man 4. Are you one of those faggots who keeps going on about how the market fee is the price of the budget or some shit? You're not a Hollywood accountant big shot because you saw some numbers on Box Office Mojo.

>>84119211
Honestly as long as he didn't write the movie, I think it would be cool to see Rob Zombie direct creature from black lagoon. I know he doesnt have the best track record, but I feel like most of his movies went down cause of the writing. I think if they give him the right script, he could do the movie justice. Not to mention the guy is a big fan of the classic monsters, they need people involved that actually have love for the source material and aren't thinking in terms of making big money and fame

Not that Cameron would be bad either, its just that realistically he seems like he'd be the last person to be able to do any of these films since he seems to be devoting the last movies of his career to avatar

File: fuck_outta_here.jpg (29KB, 552x624px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 552x624px

>>84119378
>Egyptians we're 100% white from recent studies

>>84111533
Sofia Nutella is as sweet as her name.

>>84110895
>average IQ of 90 shows
How to find ledditors 101

>>84120909
>knows what's characteristic of a redditor
Sounds like you speak from experience. Now go back

>>84120909
t. triggered brainlet

>>84112955
The evidences shows they looked more like modern day Armenians not south african niggers

>>84112955
What evidence is this deviantart shit supposed to be?

>>84108858
with tom cruise always remember
>if the movie aint based off an anime I aint watchin it saturday

all you need is kill sequel when. in fact im gonna go watch all you need is kill again

>>84113147
WORTH IT!