Talk:The Mummy (2017 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Disambiguation

Shouldn't this page have a disambiguation line at the top to distinguish it from the three other movies of the same name - The Mummy (1932 film), The Mummy (1959 film) and The Mummy (1999 film)? --Ishmael7 (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Dracula Untold

Here is your confirmation right here, fresh off the press. Dracula Untold has nothing to do with this cinematic universe. DarkKnight2149 16:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Genre

Per WP:SUBJECTIVE (" Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art.") and per WP:RS and WP:OR, we'll need third-party sources to discuss the film. In short, a director or studio involved with the film can call it anything they like, because that is their promotional material. How often have you seen a film boasting action scenes and end up without such an item? In this case, the film is not out yet and we need to wait for unrelated third-party sources before we apply a dozen genres to the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

See, I take it a different way. If they say it is an action movie, it is an action movie. If it doesn't have action, then it is a bad action movie. Kellymoat (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You can interpret it how you like, but it's still against the rules I have stated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Andrzej, also a good lead section for films contains genre. In this case it's a horror-adventure film or adventure film at least. Brandmeister^talk 16:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

If you agree with him, then why did you add the genres.Kellymoat (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the part "Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation." Many RS, independently of the director, call it "adventure film" at least: [1], [2], [3], etc. Brandmeister^talk 16:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

They haven't seen the movie yet either. They are just parakeeting the studio press release.Kellymoat (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Kellymoat. The article will survive without genre warring or interpretations. Wait until its released and we can easily come to a resolution. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no such a requirement in Wikipedia. A WP:RS doesn't cease to be an RS just because the movie is unreleased. Besides that's why you have teaser trailers. If suddenly upon release it turns out to be something different (which is highly unlikely), then we can update accordingly. But for the moment we just report the current state of things. Brandmeister^talk 16:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:Crystall Ball and WP:Too Soon --- we don't know the future, which is why we don't print things that have not happened.Kellymoat (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you all stop removing the fact that the movie is "horror"! All of these epic "Dark Universe" films are to be horror. Besides, if it's not "horror" here, why is it on the 2017 in film article? So, it's more of an "action-adventure horror film"!Cineplex (talk) 10:07, 07 August 2017 (UTC)

The Mummy's budget revealed

According to Box Office Mojo, the production budget for The Mummy is $125 million dollars: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=mummy2016.htm. I hope we can have this added into it's wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.22.19.82 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Cast details

I have added details regarding the characters. These details come directly from the producers and director. It has also been confirmed that Mister Edward Hyde will appear in the film. Just watch the attached video featurette where producers, the director, and the actor themselves go over that information. It's all official information.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that video does not confirm Mr. Hyde. This is an encyclopedia, the standards are different than social media, celebrity dirt sheets, and fansites. All we know is that Dr. Jekyll looks ghoulish. And we know that Russell Crowe doesn't want to give too much away.

Perhaps you misunderstood what the producer said - "Dr. Henry Jekyll, famous for being Jekyll and Hyde fame". Kellymoat (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps you, User:Kellymoat didn't read the name of the actual video...How much more official can that be?--50.232.205.246 (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The name of the video is troll bait. Search terms will get lots of clicks. But there is no substance behind the title. The video description asks the question, is that Mr. Hyde we see. If it was a confirmation, it wouldn't be questioned. As previously stated, an encyclopedia deals in verifiable facts, not maybes and innuendos. Kellymoat (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Kellymoat you have got to be kidding me? The video title states it, the video SHOWS it, the producer states it, and Russell Crowe confirms it while avoiding the name. This is an encyclopedia. And with an official video featurette from Universal Studios released with a title of First Look at Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde -- you're just ignoring it in ignorance. --65.130.245.163 (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, we all "know" he is going to be in the flick. But it fails confirmation, which means it does not get included in an encyclopedia.

The "name" of the YouTube video was created by the account holder, not by Universal. Which, as I stated above, is fodder for search bots. I can just as easily upload the video to my account and call it "Kellymoat and the Wikipedia argument", it doesn't make it the "official" title. Kellymoat (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Let me debunk each statement you made

1. The video title states it - Video title is created by the account holder, which is not Universal.
2. the video SHOWS it - the video shows Jekyll with a creepy face.
3. the producer states it - no, he says "The central character behind all the events in the movie is Dr. Henry Jekyll, famous for being Jekyll and Hyde." Which is the same as saying, "The film stars Tom Cruise, famous from Top Gun." It is not a confirmation that Maverick is in this movie. Nor is the previous statement a confirmation that Hyde is in the movie.
4. Russell Crowe confirms it while avoiding the name - you just answered it yourself. He avoids the name, which means he didn't confirm it.
5. an official video featurette from Universal Studios - they may have created the 2 minute video, but where was it posted? Not to Universal.
6. released with a title of First Look at Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - Is Universal responsible for creating that title?

If this was some fan forum, I would say "yes, Hyde is going to be in the movie". But this is an encyclopedia. Verifiable facts are required. Kellymoat (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Your logic is literally hilarious. Dr. Jekyll is not a real person. Your analogy for "Tom Cruise, famous for Top Gunn" doesn't apply at all. They didn't say "Russell Crowe famous for Gladiator", so your demeaning debunks really don't work very well. Secondly, Universal made the video to debut on the channel it did. They were talking about the character. The fact that it shows Cruise's character taking away a syringe while Jekyll thrashes around, while Crowe states that the character has a very personal connection to evil, not to mention every article that reports on it mentions the beginning of his 'transformation' --- is all confirmations. You are just choosing to ignore the confirmation.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing has been confirmed. Kellymoat (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah by blind ignorance, I guess you're right when it comes to your own when it comes to editing on your user page...it's clear that you have a mindset that doesn't change. Thankfully this page needn't remain behind simply because of your opinion.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing has been confirmed. Kellymoat (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Very classy^ I think other editors' opinions on this matter will greatly influence the page's layout. Just because that's your opinion doesn't mean anything unless you can get a consensus. As is, it's your ignorant and dismissive opinion.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing has been confirmed. Kellymoat (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

We will base that off of a consensus by more than just you. That's the great thing about Wikipedia's community collaboration. Otherwise you are in violation of being unconducive to collaborating.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing has been confirmed. Kellymoat (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Users: DarkKnight2149, Andrzejbanas, Brandmeister, DisneyMetalhead, 47.22.19.82, 65.130.245.163 -- I draw your attention to this discussion as you have been involved with discussions on this page, for different reasons. Kellymoat exhibits a lack of collaboration by simply rehashing the same statement to each of my comments. They assume that their opinion is the consensus here on Wikipedia, however they have zero input from other editors. Each editors' opinion is important and valued in regards to this issue. To me the evidence is OBVIOUS as anything as the studio, producers, director, and actor have all confirmed it via the above stated sources.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

A consensus isn't needed when it is a verifiable fact. Also, no where on this page is the link posted. You should post it if others are to voice an opinion.

Plus, please note, I only started repeating myself when trying to go in-depth to explain it to you wasn't sinking in. Kellymoat (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's not cut corners, a consensus is needed for every time that there is a disagreement on edits, while a reference is needed for every change to every page. You also need citations for your arguments. You have none, and I added the link to the page originally when I added information. It's obvious what I think about this discussion as I was the one who started the discussion. With an official video put together by Universal Studios here, with a title The Mummy Sneak Peak: First look at Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - what else do you need for it to "sink in", Kellymoat. Completely unbelievable. Also your behavior which indicates an attitude of WP:OWNing needs to end.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Why would a consensus be needed for a confirmation that doesn't exist. Are you trying to tell me that if we get enough people to agree that Clinton won the election, that Wikipedia can post it as true? Of course not.

Your video does not say what you want it to say - no matter how many people you bring in. Kellymoat (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. States it in the title. States it in the footage. States it. You are blindly ignoring the announcements. It will be in the movie, and then you can apologize later. Also your WP:POLITICS has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Stay on-topic, User:Kellymoat.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It's an example, not politics. How about this --- you mean that if we get enough people to say that The Yankees are a team from Chicago, that we can consider it true? Was that better?

And, tell me, other than the title, where is it stated? If I am missing something, that's different. But we don't allow innuendo, and that is all I am seeing. Also, not a chance I am going to apologize. Particularly if you read what I have said from the beginning - if this was a fansite, I would be like "hell yeah, Hyde rocks". But this is an encyclopedia. We need a lot more than wishin'-'n-hopin'.Kellymoat (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

And now that the film has been released and confirmed what the official video release from the studio originally stated - this conversation can end. Always nice when micromanaging editors are wrong, and have to deal with it later. Haha, you chose to ignorantly ignore the official marketing announcements. Glad that we can stop this petty back-n-forth now, Kellymoat.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If it ever happens again, I will do exactly the same again.

This is an encyclopedia. It has different standards than social media and fansites.Kellymoat (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Box office projections for The Mummy

According to some media sites, this film is likely to gross $40 million in its opening weekend. Also, I'm not sure why my edit is reverted. I was just putting up the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.30.106 (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Dark Universe

What tf happen with the Dark Universe (Universal Monsters) article? Why it's deleted? Enjoyer of World (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Because of petty and negative editors who decided that the film series "isn't a series until the second film is released"....really stupid, I agree. It can be found under Draft:Dark Universe (film series). --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. It has different standards than social media and fansites.Kellymoat (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Even the article MonsterVerse are created before Kong: Skull Island release its very first trailer.--Enjoyer of World (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Imhotep as inspiration?

I firmly believe that Ahmanet is also based on Imhotep from the original Mummy films, especially since she displays the same level of power he did. Anyone agree? Visokor (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2017

We don't edit based on 'I firmly believe'.73.79.235.36 (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. It has different standards than social media and fansites.Kellymoat (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Release

Later to be added in the Release section, "The film is released in Mainland China on June 9, 2017, but is trimmed by 1 minutes, totaling 106 minutes. It is very likely that the move was due to usual censorship by the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television, but it is unclear what was left out." No credible English source yet, though I learned it from reading the distribution notice in Chinese.Supermann (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You can say that it was released at 106 minutes. But you cannot speculate as to the reason why.

We need reliable sources. Kellymoat (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. But then despite AMC says it's 107 minutes, BBFC says it's 110 minutes per http://bbfc.co.uk/releases/mummy-2017-0. Who do we trust? The Chinese version is definitely 106 minutes.Supermann (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The infobox has its own set of rules, which is why I reverted your edit back to 107. But you weren't talking about putting China in the infobox, you were talking about free-form writing in the release section - or so I assumed, due to the needed addition of the censorship explanation. Kellymoat (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about prevailing runtime in the western markets. Don't revert before you do any investigation. I trust AMC most of the time but this time BBFC and NYTimes both point to 110 min. Supermann (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Supermann (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Who are you going to trust. A newspaper review with a round time, or a theater with an odd time.Kellymoat (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

So when did you decide not trust BBFC? AMC is now owned by the Chinese. Trusting it with a grain of salt is ok.Supermann (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The BBFC was removed numerous times over the last few months, always in favor of AMC. I assume because of Infobox rules, regarding country of origin.

And the NYT, which uses the same time, as I previously said, is a newspaper review. Reviews often uses times that are "rounded off", which is something that you don't see with the 107 at AMC.Kellymoat (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Now that you cite the infobox rules, please explain why BBFC is still listed as RS at Template:Infobox film for runtime section. A.O. Scott from NYT specifically mentioned 110 minutes in the body of his review. He only rounds off from seconds to one minute, but he doesn't round off 3 minutes.Supermann (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I have called AMC stubs membership services to have them re-look the runtime. I won't undo further. Enjoy the 107 minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermann (talk • contribs) 18:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Pls mark my words. @Kellymoat: will be ultimately proven wrong regarding the runtime. AMC has resumed investigating after it had blamed a third party, Rentrak/comScore for providing it the runtime info. Nobody at the theater actually counted the runtime. Call this ORIGINAL RESEARCH!Supermann (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

LOL. Dude, it's not about right and wrong. It is about sourced content from reliable parties that comply with WP Guidelines and MOS.

But, hey, if you want to make it some sort of competition, be my guest. I can't stop you. Kellymoat (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Got to be competitive. Original research/fact-checking is leadership. We shall see who will prevail. No more undoing on my end unless AMC theaters update their goddamned website! But if Blu-Ray is released showing 110 minutes, would you pls compromise? Thanks! Supermann (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

To repeat myself - it's not about compromise. It is about sourced content from reliable parties that comply with WP Guidelines and MOS. Kellymoat (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

So you are saying AMCTheaters.com has no margin of error whatsoever? Wow! It has been wrong before, but since I don't have access to deletion log, it's hard for me to bring you proof now.Supermann (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Case closed. @Kellymoat:. Universal Pictures has confirmed the theatrical runtime is 1 hour 50 minutes! This means 110 minutes not 107 minutes! Supermann (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summary is totally inappropriate. And you haven't shown anything new. The same two websites that have already been removed, and one that doesn't even mention the time. I will say this, though, Amazon has it at 112 minutes. So, again, keep trying. Kellymoat (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kellymoat: Have you even looked at the citation I gave? https://www.uphe.com/movies/the-mummy-2017 It's Universal Pictures official store! I am not the expert on how a webpage is written technically. But if you clicked on Bluray and then Standard Edition under Find Out More, you would see the "Technical Information Run Time: Theatrical: 1 Hour(s) 50 Minutes." Why would you trust Amazon more than Universal?!!?!?Supermann (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you see that the other versions have different times? And are you aware that theater versions and home versions often have different times?

And to answer your question - I found the Amazon page while clicking around your link. Kellymoat (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to find the answer as much as you do. But we can't go willy-nilly changing things. Kellymoat (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Universal Pictures specifically says and I quote, "Technical Information Run Time: Theatrical: 1 Hour(s) 50 Minutes." This is not an extended cut, a director's cut. 110 minutes simply means a theatrical cut. I am not being willy nilly. You are being stubborn and unreasonable and can't own up to your mistakes. Amazon says 110 minutes at https://www.amazon.com/Mummy-Tom-Cruise/dp/B071ZFY1SB/ref=tmm_dvd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1500146238&sr=1-4. But then it says 220 minutes at https://www.amazon.com/Mummy-Blu-ray-Tom-Cruise/dp/B0725X1SL7/ref=tmm_blu_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1500146238&sr=1-4 for the bluray probably as a mistake or it is counting the features/bonus materials. As for the 111 min or even 112, that could truly be rounding differences.Supermann (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

And when you click on Amazon from the Universal link that you posted, it says 112.

And the Universal page you posted, clicking on UHD says 111.

The times are scattered all over - even from the same source.Kellymoat (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

How can 111 and 112 be a difference based on rounding, but a round number like 110 (especially when the one source says "approximately 110") is considered accurate?Kellymoat (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this. a) When I clicked on Buy Now from Amazon for Bluray from the Universal link I posted, it says "Runtime:3 hrs 40 mins", i.e. 220 min as I had said earlier which you know for a certainty that it doesn't make sense. b) When I clicked on Buy Now from Amazon for DVD from the Universal link I posted, it says 1 hr 50 mins., i.e. 110. which corroborates with the other two sources that I have been using. c) When I clicked on Buy Now from Amazon for Digital HD from the Universal link I posted, it either says 111 or 112. So if Amazon matters this much to you, from a range of 107 to 112, 110 is the safest best. What I am begging you is please do not further revert back to 107 min. And home release is theatrical release until it is not.Supermann (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, going back to my other source at BBFC, if you could please scroll down the page and click on Related Work - Feature for 2D and 3D, you could see wording like "runtime 110m 7s" and "APPROVED RUNNING TIME 110m 7s." This additional 7s could clearly be the reason why Universal unfortunately indicates it's 111m for the Digital HD version. It should also crush the assumption that 110m is just a roundup from 107m. I honestly don't mind it being 112m, because that would only mean the 106m release in China is censored even more. I can see the appeal of using BBFC in the template especially when it approximates to seconds. Supermann (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I am well aware of your debate on the China page. I have no interest in that. That is a separate page and has no business here.

Because we have a runtime of 107(amc) up to 120 (fandango), I added "approximate" to the 110 with an editor's note explaining why it is approximate.

Kellymoat (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I am relieved that we could reach compromise here. I just saw your FandangoNow url of 120min, but another Fandango url https://www.fandango.com/themummy2017_197714/movieoverview here says 1h 50min. I know Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, but they prove to be too unreliable.Supermann (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Dark Universe scrapped

As reported here. So anyone may rewrite the article to mention The Mummy as the only film of the franchise which was scrapped because of this film's BO performance. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Already did that

Edwardadrian 21:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardadrian (talk • contribs)

Some maths

"...grossed $410 million worldwide. With a combined production and advertising budget of around $345 million, it was labeled a box office bomb, with projected losses of up to $95 million."

So it cost 345, grossed 410 and that makes a loss of 95? Please, explain the math... Macaldo (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

https://deadline.com/2017/06/the-mummy-tom-cruise-box-office-bomb-loss-1202114482/ is the cite (already in the article) which explains it. The basic point is that not all that $410 million ends up in Universal's pockets.

However, I haven't restored that sentence because the article is only speculating about the movie's results. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Why it was a Bomb

This is mostly for Rockchalk717, but anyone interested is welcome to check out out. So you’re going off the assumption a studio gets full box office returns, so $410 against $345 would look like a profit. However studios only get a percentage of ticket sales (50-60% in US, 25-50% overseas). So already, we’re down to ~$200 million for the studio against the $345 (and Deadline said just $146 of box office went to them).

As stated in the Deadline (which you seem to be ignoring?), the early estimates said the film would have a revenue of about $250 (which ended up being about $270 if you use the 38% of WW ticket sales going to Universal figure given by the article). So $345 taken out of $270 is still, at best, a $75 million loss. But it’s well-documented The Mummy lost money, dozens upon dozens of millions, thus leading to the cancellation of the Dark Universe. If the film had broken even (or as you said in an edit, turned a $60 million profit) then we wouldn’t be talking about what went wrong, we’d be talking about the next installment.

Hope this was helpful. I don’t mean to start an edit war or look like I’m talking down to you, just saw you were misinformed about how the box office business works and hoped to enlighten you. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

I am also misinformed apparently because, since for all the results I can see in Wikipedia, $410 vs $345 million is rather rare, very few movies make such a difference, so they all are benevolent film makers who all lose dozen of million... What is the part of theaters in returns? Surely not all of the $410 (million). Macaldo (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Box office

"... it was estimated the film needed to gross $450 million in order to break-even, and ended up losing the studio between $60–100 million."

The article states it grossed $410 million. So how did it lose $60-100 million? 82.21.19.72 (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear in the article, but it's explained in the accompanying Deadline source. Losing $95 million was based on a $375 million gross. There is an alternative model that would see the film lose "less than $60 million" based on a $400 million gross and break even at $450 million. Betty Logan (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)