1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

What's with the name?

Allow us to explain.


Universal Taps Underworld Director to Reboot The Mummy

We here at The Mary Sue don’t exactly hide our love for the Brendan Fraser/Rachel Weisz era of the The Mummy. After all, Evie Carnahan is one of our favorite Action Librarians. They’re action/horror movies that didn’t really seem to be made for any reason other than to show the audience a good time, and if they had some outdated tropes and clichés in them, at least it seemed like it was part of a conscious attempt to make a comedy that referenced another era of adventure film, not an unconscious one.

Which is why we’re a little sad to hear that that Len Wiseman, the guy behind Underworld, is Universal’s choice to make their Hammer Horror monster into a brand new franchise. See Rachel Weisz face up there, Universal? That’s the face we’re making.

According to Deadline, Jon Spaihts, the writer behind Prometheus who wasn’t Damon Lindelof, has been tapped to write the script, but the movie at least shares the same infamous action producers as it’s previous incarnation: Kurtzman and Orci. But don’t get your hopes up: this Mummy isn’t even going to be a period piece. Says Wiseman:

When I first heard Universal was relaunching this, that is the image that popped into my head, the period tale, the old monster, but when Bob and Alex pitched it, there was a great new take and approach, and a very different mummy as well… It’s a darker twist on the material, a scarier version.

I wonder if anybody will be firing a crossbow. Kurtzman and Orci were vague, but it seems we’ll be getting a Mummy with a scientific origin, not a mythological one. Ah, well. My guess is when this hits theaters in 2014, the Fraser/Weisz Mummy will still be a movie I’d love to spend a sick day with, and the new Mummy won’t.

(via Deadline.)

Are you following The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

TAGS: | | | | |

  • TKS

    Kate Beckinsale casting announcement impending.

  • Anonymous

    I find it harder and harder to tell the difference between reboots and just loosely borrowing a theme or character. I’m imagining the pitch went like this: “We’re making a sci-fi movie! It will be rad because there will be lots of wire-work fighting and slow-mo bullets! Zombies are overdone, so….how about a mummy? We need an ancient Egyptian name that’s easy to spell, so we’ll just call the mummy Imhotep.” Also: scientific origin? Wha…?

    I remain skeptical.

  • Alex Cranz

    Don’t get me started on how horrible this is! I mean, I’m down with Beckinsale because she’s a genuinely good actress when she isn’t coasting in her husband’s films but everything else about this just makes me a little ill. This is just not a group of creatives that I want to see collaborating on a film together–especially one that has such excellent source material.

    But quick nitpick, Kurtzman and Orci (thankfully) weren’t the producers on the 1999 version, however the two producers from that version ARE producing this one as well. Deadline worded that a little wonkily

    Kurtzman and Orci just had their first writing job (on Xena of all things) in ’99. Amazing how far they’ve come in thirteen years. From the new guys in the writer’s room for a cult show in New Zealand to the two most powerful writers in Hollywood.

  • Terence Ng

    Oh good. I needed a mummy movie where its ability to raise its dead followers, unhinge its jaw, create sandstorms, and suck the life out of people to regenerate its body had a “scientific explanation.”

    But seriously, scientific origin? So basically, it will scientifically come back from the dead and…walk around, where the slightest bump will shatter its desiccated skin and bones. Scientific and spooky, indeed.

  • TDF Pamela

    [insert NOPE NOPE NOPE octopus gif] I adore the first movie, in all its campy, cheesy glory. I love the period feel, I love the actors (seriously, Rachel Weisz as Evie is basically me in movie character form), I love it. (I hated the sequels, but that’s another rant.) I absolutely do not want to see this “rebooted” as some sort of scientific horror film. Scientific, really? With zombies, that works, but the whole concept of the shambling mummy stories deals with curses and magic and the supernatural. Just… NOPE.

  • Anonymous

    The scientific explanation is… a science-zombie wrapped in toilet paper! See, the biochemical research firm who create the zombie nanite plague did so in Egypt rather than the US for completely inexplicable movie-logic hand-waving legal reasons, and when they realize what they’ve created, well, the best way to get rid of it is to bury it in the desert. But the science-zombie nanites get into the mummy, and BOOM! ACTION FILM!

    I’ll expect my story consultant payment in six months. :D

  • Anonymous

    Ooh, or even better… here’s a twist: NOT AN EGYPTIAN MUMMY! How about the tattooed Siberian mummy? Then the sinister biotech group could be RUSSIAN! WINNER! :D

  • Anonymous

    (And with that, I think I’ve exceeded my recommended daily allowance of sarcasm.)

  • Anonymous

    “Look, I… I may not be an explorer, or an adventurer, or a treasure-seeker, or a gunfighter, Mr. O’Connell, but I am proud of what I am. I… am a librarian!” [passes out from too much drink]

    This movie had some great, cheesy dialogue. Why do they have to reboot it? Just tell a different mummy story?

  • Cam

    I am all for franchise reboots when used to introduce a new generation to a classic tale, but couldn’t they have waited a little longer? I literally just watched The Mummy Returns and nothing about the movie screamed “Reboot Me.” How is anything supposed to become a classic if they Ctrl+Alt+Delete a movie franchise every 10 years? I hate to say it but I am totally mentally recasting right now LOL “Hey there Joe Manganiello as Ardeth Bay.” O_O