I don't need a new Mummy movie. But I might need a new Brendan Fraser Mummy movie.
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
108 points (97.4% liked)
movies
1997 readers
707 users here now
A community about movies and cinema.
Related communities:
- !television@piefed.social
- !homevideo@feddit.uk
- !mediareviews@lemmy.world
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
Rules
- Be civil
- No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
- Do not spam
- Stay on topic
- These rules will evolve as this community grows
No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
Agreed. And Radio Silence directing? I'm officially pumped.
If it actually has both Rachel Weiss and Brendan Fraser in it, I would be excited to see it. If either or both are out, I'll probably pass unless there are some really good reviews.
C'mon, studio. Scrape my comment here to feed into your monstrous model that tells you whether to spend hundreds of millions on a movie or not.
I loved the first one, liked the second one until the final hideousness with The Rock. The third one was utter dogshit,.
I will pass.
While I like the original two Mummy movies (Scorpion King was OK), I am not sure what the point of remake or continuation would be.
The point is that I want Brendan Fraser to have more money and I love him
On that note I'd love a Monkeybone sequel.
I accept that it will be terrible, I just want it.
Monkeybone wasn't terrible!
It wasn't a well acted or constructed story with amazing dialogue but it set out to be an incredibly weird niche movie with a specific vibe and it nailed that vibe perfectly!
10/10 movie in my books. It did exactly what it was planning to do.
Oh, I agree. I just think it was lightning in a bottle that can't be captured twice. I just want someone to prove me wrong.
Thats about the only reason I perked up when I saw the headline.
Making money for the IP owner.
I would prefer if this wasn't the only accomplishment of a hypothetical sequel.
The people making sequels only want to accomplish that. That’s the whole point of sequels and franchises.
Nobody in charge is thinking: “gosh that’s an important or interesting story that has some more depth in it. We should explore that concept in a new way”
It’s always: “that movie sold enough to justify risking money on producing another product that sells just as much”
What is the point of any book, movie, song, piece of art?
That's a very good question that doesn't really have an answer.
I am just not a fan of random sequels, remakes and faux-adaptions (e.g. Foundation or The Man in the High Castles).
Make a sequel by all means, but make it a unique experience, make it something new, give people that "wow, I didn't expect that!" feeling.
Didn't they already do this? with Tom Cruise in 2017? Are they just wholesale dismissing the existence of that film? because honestly, fair it was shite.
No. The Cruise mummy movie had no connection to the Frazier movies.
The Cruise movie was a second attempt to be the anchor of the Dark Universe. (After Dracula Untold shat the bed).
No, because that movie didn’t bisexually awaken a single person.
Time for my TRIsexual awakeningoh people already say that, they say "trYsexual as in I'll try anything", now it's just gross
I'm all for a Brendan Fraser + Rachel Weisz movie, but why do we need a mummy? How about a completely unconnected original story?
I'd watch. At least they haven't run this one into the ground, like Star Wars, Star Trek, and MCU. Although, Andor was good. I tried watching the new Superman, and... no. I only made it about ten minutes before shutting it off. I think I've had my fill of superhero movies.
The 3rd one was shit, but mostly because Rachel Weisz wasn't in it.
Yes the have run it into the ground. I guess you never tried the Scorpion King crap.