[ SECRET POST #6358 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6358 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.
[12 Monkeys (series)]



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 32 secrets from Secret Submission Post #909.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It's hard to complain too much about it (after all, The Mummy 1999 was already literally a remake anyway) but yeah, I don't think it's going to be much good.

I do wonder why modern studios seem to be so bad at making this kind of movie. I guess it's because there aren't really directors and writers who organically like this kind of material anymore? Most new writers and directors coming up are either clued-up ironic hipsters or nasty intense horror/thriller writers. The kind of 90s historical adventure we saw doesn't seem to be in the wheelhouse of creatives at the moment. And of course the way that people use CGI is bad and the production process for most big budget movies seems to be a shitshow which doesn't help.

[feotakahari]

I think it’s about gambles. When you let writers and directors do whatever, sometimes it sucks and sometimes it’s awesome. When you focus group to make sure a worldwide audience will buy tickets, you lose the chance for an unexpected burst of creativity.

[(Anonymous)]

Despite MGM's motto, Hollywood has always been a business. Businesses only like so much risk-taking.

[feotakahari]

They take more risks if there’s less to lose, though. A fourth Mummy film could make a huge amount of money even if it’s “safe” and audiences don’t like it that much, and could forfeit a lot if one of the target demographics actively criticized it to their friends. Whereas a new franchise with a smaller budget wouldn’t have much expected of it and wouldn’t risk much by experimenting.

(Granted, the 1999 Mummy was a pretty big risk at a $80 million budget. But even with inflation, $175 million for the third movie was a big jump.)

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

IDK. I think, for example, that letting Denis Villeneuve do Dune was a comparable risk to The Mummy all things considered (on the one hand Villeneuve had a stronger box office track record than Stephen Sommers; on the other hand Dune 1984 was more or less a bomb so the property was riskier; probably a wash between the two things). It's certainly more *rare* nowadays to take risks like that, but it does happen.

The difference is that Villeneuve has a different style and different interests creatively than Sommers. So both of them IMO made very good movies; it's just that the style of the movies is different. Villeneuve wants to do big ambitious epic-scale sci-fi, that's the scope of his work. And apparently no competent creators working in Hollywood have the taste and aesthetic for the kind of organic historical adventures that we got in the 90s. Or, similarly, the kind of organic live-action cartoon movies we saw during the same period.

So, IDK. It just seems like it's a shift in cultural taste as much as anything else. I do think some of it is Hollywood getting worse at making interesting pictures but definitely not all of it.