>As Kurtzman struggled to adjust to scope of the project, it felt more like Cruise was the real director, often dictating the major action sequences and micro-managing the production
>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.
Inside ‘The Mummy’s’ Troubles: Tom Cruise Had Excessive Control
>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.
>With terrible reviews, “The Mummy,” which insiders say cost as much as $190 million to make and more than $100 million more to market and release worldwide, may struggle to make its money back. The film is performing much stronger overseas, where it was Cruise’s biggest international rollout with a $142 million opening weekend. It’s not clear if the movie will break even, and it’s cast a shadow on the studio’s plans for a Dark Universe franchise that’s supposed to feature A-list stars like Johnny Depp (as “The Invisible Man”) and Angelina Jolie (in negotiations for “The Bride of Frankenstein”).
variety.com
is it true he hasn't seen suri for the past five yeas?
...
overcompensating, manlet cunt
oh man poor Kurtzman lol
variety.com
h-hey... mind keepin the accusations low over here? I-it's gettin kinda warm hehe.
Don't beat yourself up too much, pal.
Wtf? I hate Tom cruise now!
G-guys... can you blast the AC p-pls
>A-list
>Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie
It's like Universal have been in hibernation since the last Fraser Mummy was released. They have old, washed-up people. Also, Tom Cruise has been acting like this for over twenty years. People were surprised Kubrick hired him because of Cruise's famous demands for final cut and 200 close-ups per movie. How can they be so ignorant?
If (((Kurtzman))) had any integrity in his kike bones, he could have left the project any day. But he didn't.
cruise has a pretty good track record, I'm not very worried about his future projects.
>and it’s cast a shadow on the studio’s plans for a Dark Universe franchise that’s supposed to feature A-list stars like Johnny Depp (as “The Invisible Man”) and Angelina Jolie (in negotiations for “The Bride of Frankenstein”).
LOL!
...
>Kurtzman
YEAH, LET'S BLAME TOM CRUISE
drumpf BTFO
>Kurtzman
Cruise is based, fuck the talentless director hack
Cruise has made some absolute kino
And the Bardem Frankenstein movie could be pretty fucking great
Everything else will flop
read the articles, Tiny Tim messed around with the script and production putting himself right on the center of the project, he even gave a speech at the premiere and didn't let the other actor say or do anything other than stand next to him like retards
He has been doing this since the 90s. Why are people acting like this is a new thing? He was mocked for it before he even married Nicole Kidman, it's that long-standing. This is why everything he's been in except Eyes Wide Shut is garbage.
doubt he did it in his Spielberg kinos
Isn't this his first real big flop? So clearly all these years he's been doing this have largely paid off up until now. Maybe the idea itself is just fucking stupid.
It's karma for Kurtzmann ruinning blockbusters with his mate Orci. Thank you based Tom
>read the articles
It's clear that you haven't.
Rock of Ages
That pic was so obviously photoshopped it's funny. Sofia a cute though.
Kurtzman is one of those people that has been a key part of so many bad projects that even if his complaints aren't excuses, there's no reason to believe his work wouldn't have been irredeemable trash anyway.
there's an alternate universe where Tom acts his age and plays mentor/experienced guy roles like this movie's Dr. Jekyll
>Cruise has made some absolute kino
Like thirty years ago...
I don't get the logic behind this. Assuming that's the only thing the nazis did, why were they even keeping the jews captive in the first place? That's still unacceptable but a lot better than whatever the holocaust was, I guess.
Dusting off the old juggernauts for a few loosely connected flops.
>Tom Cruise is older than Russel Crowe
>Crowe calls him a young man in the mummy
>YOUNG MAN
>Inside the theater, Tom Cruise was jubilant, as he stood in front of the crowd. “Hey y’all,” said the 54-year-old actor. He introduced Alex Kurtzman, the film’s director, as well as the cast members, who stood quietly as Cruise delivered a 10-minute improvised speech. “Movies aren’t made by single people,” he said. “It’s a team effort.”
HAHAHAHA
Simple psychological reversal, you control the domain your in at, to give you a sense of being in control, while outside forces are controlling you.
Wonder what Scientology has in their hands to destroy him… I actually pity him…
Watch "Going Clear - Scientology and the the Prison of Belief" 2015. Eyeopener
>cinematic universe falls flat on its face
>blame Tom cruize
Pathetic
Maybe the Hyde thing kept him alive longer.
>>As Kurtzman struggled
Ta-dum.
Look at Cruise's track record versus this shithead. Jake Johnson has been spewing love for Cruise for weeks promoting this movie. Cruise probably made this movie BETTER than what Kurtz wrote. You cant fix shitty writing.
He was the best part of that though.
I assume that strip is a reductio ad absurdum of Holocaust deniers. Which is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Yep. It doesn't make sense, they're wasting some potent characters on has-beens, but whatever.
People have got tired, but none of those films were worthwhile anyway, he was playing to his fans.
are you a one of those dumb fucks that think tom hardy and mew should be cast in everything? If not the stars the studio picked then who?
Hint
No, I just think current stars, not Liberace-mode Cruise or meth-addict-mode Depp. Bardem's more defensible but still in his fifties, and the girl, the only one of reasonable dime-drawing age, is a literal who.
I agree, the old timers should all do what Russel Crowe did: introduce the younger actors to le dark universe, I mean this shit is supposed to be a 10 years or so franchise like the MCU, right? and they start their shit with 60 year old motherfuckers
Exactly. It's not like they can't afford people who are worth getting *now*.
>le dark universe
>60 year old motherfuckers
kill yourself faggot
It's weird because he was terribly cast and too old for the movie.
Tom Cruise should go suck me off, jk jk
lol wouldnt it be funny if Tom Cruise was my boyfriend and we were gay together haha
thatd be so weird and funny, imagine being at our gay wedding ahaha
In the Universal's monster as we know, those damn beings are the core breed. I would really love to see Tom played out the monster, not a human being who holds POV.
How is Cruise so tall in that picture?
This whole "universe" is so stupid anyway.
Cruise did all he could and managed to at least save it from flopping as badly as Dracula Untold.
dark universe is the name of the franchise, Tom Cruise (their Iron Man) is 54, kinda old to start a mega franchise with
dumb suicide poster
I wish he was my dad desu, as a non-sexual fantasy
The Jews are not trustworthy they had to be locked up, just like America did to the shifty Japs.
>save it from flopping as badly as Dracula Untold
It has worse reviews than Dracula Untold and it only had a slightly bigger opening weekend (which means nothing considering the Mummy's budget was more than double Dracula Untold's)
>implying locking up the Japanese wasn't the worst (wrongest) thing we did since slavery had ended
People who left shithole imperial Japan to run an upholstery business in Sacramento were stronger believers in American ideals than 4th generation kids who didn't know how good they had it. But nah, make them sell all the things they worked their asses off for and move to a camp in bumfuck nowhere under armed guard. When we finally let them serve the 442 became the most decorated unit of the war. That was some bullshit
t. Akira
I think you have to consider the context. In reality, more than out of any fear of espionage, those people were locked up for their own protection. Remember what it was like for anyone Asian or Arab-looking after 9/11? Imagine 1941 America after Pearl Harbor. Their safety could not have been guaranteed if they'd carried on with their normal lives, and the government didn't want the appalling and morale-draining spectacle of white American police defending Japanese-Americans from other white Americans. That would be terrible for everyone. Better to take the Japanese-Americans off somewhere where they'd be safe. People who now paint this as a racist atrocity by the government don't realize how naive they sound. There could very well have been a bloodbath.
Give it up, Tom.
The article is more accusatory than the crew's statements themselves.
Close, white guy from Hawaii. I do love those Japs and other East Asians
Yeah, I get that. But the way they handled personal property and stuff could have been a lot better I think. I always try to understand the people behind historical events, after all humans have been basically the same since hunter/gatherer times, it's only the trappings around us that have changed so much. But it's just tough to swallow such a clear compromise of our ideals in a time, albeit an extraordinary one, that still feels very recent
>In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government and authorized a payment of $20,000 (equivalent to $41,000 in 2016) to each camp survivor. The legislation admitted that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership".[23]
But it didn't happen. The concentration camps in the other hand did. Just like USA had for germans and japanese or even Japan prisoner camps.
>"Haha you really believe that genocide happened no way that's ridiculous. You really believe some people actually tried to do what I and many like me espouse every day? "
i don't think he did for magnolia
Their fault for being stupid and not having the balls to make it more straight up horror, and tell Cruise to fuck off
I don't understand why studios are always too pussy to do stuff like that, but are more likely to put the majority of their money on unpredictable actors that cause more problems than they do to help contribute to the movie. Like why would you want to hire someone like Jonny Depp at the moment whose known right now to be difficult to work with and needs people to keep tabs on him to show up to work on time and not waste money for the studio.
I hate how these studios try to rely so much on "star power". The only reason people will see movies if it actually looks good. I know Star power can kind of help but it isn't the sole purpose of a movies success. I think actors get way too much credit and it's a real shame they get paid the most for production work.
Next time hire a cheaper but good actor that's known, spend that extra money on more production work and equipment like special effects and other shit that you would have other wise spent on someone like cruise to meet his shitty demands,write a good movie and make it with no problem, Guarantee it would have made better money and it would all be a better outcome
that's more of a gamble though.
using depp is an interesting example because the 5th fucking pirates movie already passed $600 million and it's still in theaters near me.
i imagine all the flyover state yokels not being familiar with the claude raines invisible man. they probably are so drunk on corn based sugars they don't even remember hollow man. but they sure as shit MIGHT pay $50 to take their children to the multiplex to see johnny depp be invisible.
>i imagine all the flyover state yokels not being familiar with the claude raines invisible man.
There you'd be wrong, heartland people are more than familiar with the classics.
>Next time hire a cheaper but good actor that's known, spend that extra money on more production work and equipment like special effects and other shit that you would have other wise spent on someone like cruise to meet his shitty demands,write a good movie and make it with no problem, Guarantee it would have made better money and it would all be a better outcome
Like pretty much every successful franchise of recent years, and also like the original Universal horrors. Lugosi, Karloff and Rains all became movie stars from those roles, none of them had previously been a main draw for anything. All of the roles were recastable later in part because the part had always been bigger than the actor playing him, whereas the Depp Invisible Man films, assuming this doesn't sputter out as it probably will, will need either Depp in the sequels or a reboot.
When was the last time he was in a movie barring this one?
They were a response to race prejudice. Also, Reagan was a Republican, many older Republicans were former isolationists anyway, and Asian Americans vote Republican, so it was good for the base, and good as a stab at winning round clueless liberals. You seem naive.
marvel succeeded because everyone is at least pop culturally familiar with iron man/thor/etc.
OG universal monsters succeeded because that was the only face of horror at the time.
the problem is now the horror genre has more films made than ever before, the market is saturated.
It was the quickest way to do it, alternative was pay a mint in storage costs for people who won't be able to fit everything in some tiny prefabricated single-story place.
I don't know what you mean by "compromise of our ideals". Nothing governments do is ever idealistic. This was a pragmatic public order decision.
>OG universal monsters succeeded because that was the only face of horror at the time.
If that were simply the case, nobody would watch those films now except for comfy nostalgia, but they're still great cinema.
Yes, but people are equally familiar with the Universal monsters. You don't need ancient Tom Cruise to sell The Mummy, nor do you need druggie, toothless Depp to sell The Invisible Man.
Just another SP hitpiece trying to attack Tom because of his religious beliefs
(((They))) are desperate to destroy him to damage Scientology's credibility
Domestic: $40,515,980 22.4%
+ Foreign: $140,757,046 77.6%
= Worldwide: $181,273,026
You know I was thinking about this the other day after I heard how bad the mummy did.
I think the only movie I've seen staring tom cruise was the first mission impossible movie. Which I thought was just ok. I think that was about the same time the classic modern mumy movie came out and I remember that way more vividly
Why is Tom cruise so highly regarded again?
>why were they even keeping the jews captive in the first place?
They were foreigners who were using foreign money to buy up Germany when it was economically weak after WW1. They also owned a majority of the press and weren't always truthful (lugenpresse), owned the majority of the entertainment industry, facilitated cultural degeneracy in places like Berlin, and actually declared a boycott on German businesses.
Also the majority of the high ranking bolsheviks were jews, and communism was a very real threat.
Basically, jews were doing everything they could to destroy Germany from the inside out.
He's not, some people think they have to praise him for earning the same money from the same movie every year. I think it makes them feel like they were rich themselves, or had bought shares in him, or something. It's odd.
Scientology's credibility is long gone.
I liked Dracula Untold. Does this mean that Dracs dropped?
>Johnny Depp (as “The Invisible Man”) and Angelina Jolie (in negotiations for “The Bride of Frankenstein”).
Jesus, it's like they enjoy throwing money away.
Governments are pragmatic yeah, but a country can have ideals, they're laid out pretty elegantly in our constitution. The history of the United States as I see it is that of a group of people from widely varied backgrounds trying to live up to a set of ideals they've all bought into whether they thought very deeply about it or not. The fact that the people, not necessarily the government, of the US in the early 40s could accept the treatment of citizens of Japanese descent (plus a few Germans and others) with hardly any dissent disquiets me. I understand it, but still see it as a failing and feel for the people affected
>"Movies aren't made by single people," he said.
Fuck... no singles policy coming sooner than we thought
Dracula Untold is no longer part of this universe. Because it performed poorly, Universal decided it was best to ignore it and start over with the Mummy. The irony is of course that The Mummy got worse reviews and a similar box office making their decision to drop it pointless.
And when compared to The Mummy reboot, Dracula Untold seems like a masterpiece tbqh
Yeah but despite the money it made I still wouldn't want to put a shit ton of money to depend on an actor that can't fully commit to the work and has lines fed to him through a mic. Pirates is doing good cause he already established that character years ago when he put more heart into the project. Now he just has to show up drunk and he's in character. Plus like you kind of mentioned. Why would you pay a big name actor when your not going to see him. They should've picked someone with a more unique voice to hear, like I'm sure depp could pull it off if he put effort into it, but otherwise I think they should've had Russell Crowe play that role and find someone else for Dr Jeckel. Like Gibson would've been good, or I'd like to even see him as wolfman. I'm really hoping to god they don't have the rock do it though. Like I'm sure he'd actually try, but it would be such a waste of money to spend that much on him, cause it would take away from the budget on more important shit like more practical and special effects
I didn't like Dracula untold because of the direction they took it in, I was hoping for more of a horror vibe than action adventure, and not making him a antihero. So I was glad when they dropped it.
But then it looked like the mummy took the same direction so looks like they'll never learn their lesson
the "movie universe" meme needs to end, it isn't even a thinly veiled cashgrab anymore. Maybe pool your effort into making 1 good movie instead of 5 shitty movies that are poorly tied together
Learn German history. Immediately preceding WW2 the Jews literally tried to seize control of Germany.
Cruise basically became the way he is because he got massively butthurt by the lack of an oscar for Magnolia.
Not only did they not learn their lesson, they made things worse. Dracula Untold, in comparison to The Mummy, actually had more horror and blood, etc… it had enough sense to be set in the past (so it doesn't come across as a generic modern action movie), had a better developed love story (a key element of the classic universal horror films that the new Mummy seems to have forgotten about), and a clearer set-up for a monster universe.
Its like Kurtzman, Cruise, or whoever had never watched any of the classic universal monster films and decided to make a sub-par Tom Cruise action movie with CGI zombies.
>Kurtzman's previous writing credits
>Star Trek: Into Darkness
>Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
>The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Yeah, Cruise must have really tanked this production. Too bad we might not get to see the budding directorial genius of this industry newcomer :(
the modern day scene of dracula untold at the end was pretty good and the part where he gets turned
i forgot everything else
this whole dark universe thing is fucking retarded from the ground up. Also Cruise isn't playing one of the monsters, so what the fuck is he doing standing front and centre like fucking iron man? The classic universal monsters were the stars not some 50 year old in a t shirt
its pretty forgettable but it has some great sequences, score, and visuals. I also found that it respected the story enough while also presenting a new take on it. certainly more memorable and respectful of the source than the mummy reboot
what happened to tom cruise? is this plastic surgery? weight gain? he looked just fine in mission impossible and oblivion