Inside ‘The Mummy’s’ Troubles: Tom Cruise Had Excessive Control

There is a reason why when Marvel were putting their cinematic universe together, they originally went for people who they could get on the cheap (and fired Edward Norton for trying to exert too much creative control). This is pretty much it right there.
 
Ghost Protocol rules.

As does Rogue Nation.

Mission Impossible is one of the few action film series that is neither a MCU piece nor a prestige, R rated action drama (see Logan) but still ends up turning out very well critically and financially.

I expect that this article is a bit of throwing Tom Cruise under the bus. This film's failures seem more like the fault of Alex Kurtzman (who is known for his awful characters and lazy, connect the dots plotting) as well as the studio's need to build up a cinematic expanded universe as quickly as possible. I just don't see Cruise caring that much about all of the Prosidum (?) bullshit.
 
Cruise is a great actor but in RL he's kind of bat shit. I honestly don't know how they expected it to succeed, especially since it was an IP nobody gave a shit about.
 
Also, IIRC he had a lot of say in Edge of Tomorrow and the MI movies and all of them have female leads who kick tons of ass, and not whatever Dr. Constant Ineffectual Damsel was.
 
Cruise is the best part of the movie. I'm not sure how anyone is surprised that a movie brought to you by Alex Kurtzman is a mess, especially one set to launch a universe no one asked for.
 
They gonna reboot their Dank Universe yet again?

It's too late. They already did the big cast reveal in the trades. They could certainly ignore this movie and only take Dr. Jekyll from it. But I'm thinking they're going to limp through these next movies no matter what.
 
It's too late. They already did the big cast reveal in the trades. They could certainly ignore this movie and only take Dr. Jekyll from it. But I'm thinking they're going to limp through these next movies no matter what.

Even part of the article:
Universal knew that if it wanted “The Mummy” to compete against the likes of “Wonder Woman” and “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” it needed every ounce of Cruise’s waning star power. As the studio scrambled to deal with weak tracking, it released a portrait in late May of Cruise with other actors from the Dark Universe franchise, including Depp and Javier Bardem (who will play Frankenstein). Yet the studio couldn’t even assemble all the actors in the room at the same time, and the image had to be Photoshopped. The Internet reaction to the last-ditch marketing effort was tepid at best. It was another reminder that the big names that once ruled Hollywood are inspiring a lot less love from audiences.
 
Hmmmmm, when Cruise works with good directors and writers the movie usually ends up being very good. This movie was actually co written by his new golden boy, whatever the dude who wrote and directed the last Mission Impossible movie. Also apparently saved Rogue One.

Well, the script was an aimless piece of shit. Incoherent at times. Kurtzman isn't exactly impeccable at all. Most of his movies are shit.

Tom Cruise actually exerts just as much influence on many of his other movies, the ones he produces, and they turn out great like the Mission Impossible movies. This just seems like Cruise assembled his team, which he is usually really good at doing. But it seems like he assumed his golden boy would spin the script into shape again, but that didn't happen, and Kurtzman isn't going to save the movie. I mean Kurtzman was also a scriptwriter so there isn't much of an excuse for allowing such a huge piece of shit to come out.

As good as Cruise can be, he isn't a screenwriter. I think he might've put too much faith into his writer.
 
See, the problem isn't Cruise. If anything, he was the highlight of the film.

No one wanted a Mummy reboot. I'm not even sure anyone wanted a Mummy sequel.

Much like Pirates of the Caribbean, the first Stephen Sommers Mummy was great, the sequel wasn't as good, by the third movie everyone was happy the trilogy was over.

Unfortunately they kept making PotC films, and it seems they are going to make more Mummy films too. Sigh.
 
I wouldn't call The Mummy a bad movie. It's perfectly serviceable summer blockbuster. It's fun. It's loud. It's at times funny. Nothing unforgettable or innovative though.
 
I wouldn't call The Mummy a bad movie. It's perfectly serviceable summer blockbuster. It's fun. It's loud. It's at times funny. Nothing unforgettable or innovative though.

Yeah, this is pretty much where I landed too. I enjoyed it but it was nothing special.

It's weird to see so many people acting like it's one of the worst movies ever when it came out so close to King Arthur: Legend of the Sword which genuinely might be one of the worst movies ever.
 
In this day and age its extremely hard to sneak a movie into box office success. Transformers should be an interesting case. Domestically, we have seen time and time and time again that movies with weak scores bombing the first weekend, which wouldn't have happened as much just a decade ago. You used to more or less be able to guarantee that if star X is involved and you spend $Y on marketing you WILL make back your budget.
The only thing saving blockbusters right now are overseas box office receipts, and even that is going to die out as China and others start making their own summer blockbusters.

Social media has become a double edged sword - it lets advertising do its own job as word of mouth spreads extremely fast, but it also quickly spreads when a movie, game, TV show, whatever isn't very good.
 
If I'm remembering correctly, this was a long gestating project that probably only got made because of his involvement.

But was that before or after they decided on this whole Dark Universe thing? Because if it was after that fact, then it wouldn't really matter if they got Cruise or not since I would assume they were going to make The Mummy part of the cinematic universe anyway, and brought in someone a little lower-tier who wouldn't ask for creative control.
 
In this day and age its extremely hard to sneak a movie into box office success. Transformers should be an interesting case. Domestically, we have seen time and time and time again that movies with weak scores bombing the first weekend, which wouldn't have happened as much just a decade ago. You used to more or less be able to guarantee that if star X is involved and you spend $Y on marketing you WILL make back your budget.
The only thing saving blockbusters right now are overseas box office receipts, and even that is going to die out as China and others start making their own summer blockbusters.

Social media has become a double edged sword - it lets advertising do its own job as word of mouth spreads extremely fast, but it also quickly spreads when a movie, game, TV show, whatever isn't very good.

But this is a good thing. The secret to success? Make good shit. That's how it should be.
 
Knight and Day is great.

It's the most Tom Cruise movie that ever Tom Cruised.

Right? such a fun movie.

I believe that Tom had a lot of control over this movie, it's how he works nowadays, but I am hesitant to lay the blame on him considering his track record.

clockworkinyou said:
I'm one of the few that actually really enjoyed Oblivion

I'm with you. Looked and sounded amazing. Definitely one of my favorite recent sci-fi movies.
 
Let the scapegoating begin.

What I don't understand is how the execs don't realize that audiences simply don't want a mummy movie. It's not an interesting IP nowadays.
 
Kurtzman is to blame here but let's do a Cruise hitpiece.

I agree. I don't know how you go from directing a drama to a multi million dollar effects tent pole. I know he is a producer of big movies but so are hundreds of people who would never dream of rolling camera on one.

Cruise seems to find directors he trusts and enjoys working with. He usually has taste and a bravery, the sort of bravery that gets Brad Bird to go live action or believe in Kosinski with Oblivion after seeing Tron Legacy. I think he just made an error of judgement here.

Cruise is no stranger to a set and once you've worked with Spielberg, Tony and Ridley Scott, Paul Anderson, JJ Abrams, Cameron Crowe, Oliver Stone, Michael Mann, Edward Zwick, Rob Reiner, and more I think he knows what his job is.
 
But was that before or after they decided on this whole Dark Universe thing? Because if it was after that fact, then it wouldn't really matter if they got Cruise or not since I would assume they were going to make The Mummy part of the cinematic universe anyway, and brought in someone a little lower-tier who wouldn't ask for creative control.

Beforehand. I want to say rumors of a modern day Cruise starring Mummy was around since 2012 or so; rumors ranged from a sequel to '99 Mummy to a standalone, but he wasn't officially in until '15.

This Dark Universe thing is definitely recent though, I doubt the initial project was even conceived with that in mind.

Either way, this article screams of the studio or whoever trying to blame something for it being a bit of a flop, and he's the biggest and most convenient target.
 
This explains the scene where
he stabs himself for no apparent reason.

I can almost hear him saying, "Wouldn't it be better if instead of her doing it, I do it, heroically for some reason..."
 
Dude made Edge of Tomorrow and the MI movies have been for the most part great. So I'm not going to believe he's the single cause for its failure.
 
Did Tom Cruise shit out Dracula and this whole Dark Universe concept as well? Maybe he hired Kurtzman to direct. Lol.
 
GAF's man-crush on Tom Cruise continues to be the weirdest thing about it.

Dude is a shit-heel. Even if his filmography was as good as some here claim - and it's not - he's still a well known ego-maniacal control freak who has been a party to all sorts of sketchy scientology shit.
 
This reminds me that I would really love to rewatch the first Brendan Fraser 'Mummy' film again. Carry on though.
 
Top Bottom