I normally don’t watch any trailers except for those movies which I feel have little chances of being any good. So I watched the trailer for this a few weeks ago and found exactly what I expected-- not surprised in the least by the (admittedly early) unfavorable reviews.
I was excited to go see this with my son, because I figured it could either be good, or so bad it’s good. We watched a couple of the original Mummy movies in preparation (the original 1932 version with Boris Karloff, and the Hammer Horror version from 1959 with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee), and we’re planning to watch the 1999 Brendan Fraser one too. So we were all set to be there on opening night.
Then my son watched the latest trailer (unskippable, natch) on YouTube. Here’s what he said:
“Hey, remember all those interesting questions that the first trailer brought up, like [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]? Well this new trailer gives away the answers to those, and basically the whole movie. I have zero desire to see the movie now.”
So…yeah, great job Universal.
Yeah, the last trailer is a disaster. Way too much reveal. Only question now, is the how (not the if) he saves the blonde when she is pulled underwater.
I mean, I’m not an idiot; I get the idea of marketing. But someone somewhere has to teach people that A) less is more when it comes to trailers, and B) you should actually pay attention to the plot of the movie and figure out a trailer from that. Don’t just scan through the entire movie, find the coolest five-segments, and throw them all together in one trailer. “Hey, that part where they blow up the Death Star looks great! Let’s throw that in!”
Actually, you’ve got that backwards. Generally, many of these shitty blockbuster-type movies are made by thinking of sequences that would look good in the trailer first. Then they write the script around those.
I love the tag line on Slate’s review of the movie: “The Mummy Stars an Eerily Inhuman Creature, Plus a Mummy.”
The Brendan Fraser version is a more action-comedy take and a lot of pulpy fun. You guys should watch that one.
But any hope that the movie has any brains left inside its excerebrated cranium is quashed when, as they’re running from those unspecified insurgents, Johnson’s character calls in a drone strike on their village, and the movie goes several minutes before offhandedly mentioning that, oh yeah, all the villagers were cleared out first. “Hooray for the drone strike!” is not really a sentiment a movie that just wants you to lie back and enjoy can afford to incite.[/quote]
Dying over here.
Why do you people keep watching trailers?
Yeah, it baffles me as well. I finally gave up on complaining back in 2002, and just capitulated. Trailers are often going to show the coolest and best stuff in a movie. If you don’t want the movie spoiled, you can’t watch the trailer. That’s the way it is. Occasionally you’ll get a restrained trailer that doesn’t give away the whole movie, but they’re the exception not the rule.
This was not an enjoyable movie. There was one really genuinely funny moment which I can’t recall but I do remember cackling pretty good.
I find Cruise brings a lot of energy to most roles and I didn’t see the energy here. Just my opinion though.
Honestly, they’re just hard to avoid. Believe me, I went through a couple years of avoiding all the trailers for big movies I was looking forward to, and it was painful. My son and I avoided all trailers for Star Wars, and we either had to leave the theater during the trailer, or just close your eyes and plug your ears. (And yes, we did both at different times.)
For Star Wars, it really didn’t matter all that much because there weren’t any huge spoilers. Lucasfilm/Abrams/whoever are actually pretty good at making good Star Wars trailers. Other studios, not so much, but then you have the same inconvenience problem from before. I don’t see out trailers, but sometimes they’re really difficult to avoid (like the Mummy trailer, which was a 15-second unskippable YouTube video that still managed to spoil the movie).
I think trailers for existing franchises get to cheat because they frankly don’t have to show anything for it to make sense, because the audience already has background info.
Stand alone movies or new franchises have to do some explaining, or risk the trailer being incomprehensible.
Take the Last Jedi trailer, for example. That wouldn’t make any sense without SW knowledge.
I find it pretty easy, to be honest. Admittedly I only see half a dozen or so new movies in the cinema every year, but even so, it’s not that hard to turn up late or as you say block out your senses. You talk about your son watching a trailer on Youtube. Just walk away from the computer! And there are people in this thread actively watching linked trailers, and then complaining about having done so. That’s a pretty easy mistake not to make.
So a bad trailer that shows all the good parts of a bad movie, but might get people to spend some money on the movie, actually a good trailer? : )
From the perspective of the company that was hired to make the trailer and put butts in seats, yes.
Yeah, that is why if I see too many good parts in a trailer I do not go to the movies but wait for it to appear on Netflix etc.
Yeah, I exclusively go to movies where the trailer is awful, because then I know that all the good parts are in the movie.
I guess I go to more movies than you do, or at least movies in the same general area as trailers I want to avoid. So when I see Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 on opening night, I’m guaranteed to see trailers for Thor: Ragnarok and Star Wars, and I can’t just show up late and get bad seats. So, I do the best I can, but ultimately it’s an uphill battle.
I certainly don’t go see movies on opening night, but even so, I still have to sit through trailers sometimes, and when I do, I shut my eyes and block my ears.