[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 07 June 2017 - 06:12 PM, said:

The first two MUMMY movies are glorious fun, stupidly enjoyable even when they are being stupid, CGI Rock and all.
There was no third movie.

Agreed.

[Silencer]

Screen Junkies Review

More or less sounds like exactly the laundry list of problems I figured this movie might have once I found out it was supposed to be the start of a shared movie universe. Basically, all the problems of BvS but turned up to 11, and minus any of the redeeming points. *sigh*

[Morgoth]

Silencer, on 08 June 2017 - 06:44 AM, said:

Screen Junkies Review

More or less sounds like exactly the laundry list of problems I figured this movie might have once I found out it was supposed to be the start of a shared movie universe. Basically, all the problems of BvS but turned up to 11, and minus any of the redeeming points. *sigh*

Sounds like a late night, some beers after the pub closes, cable rental sort of movie.

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 07 June 2017 - 06:36 PM, said:

Abyss, on 07 June 2017 - 06:12 PM, said:

The first two MUMMY movies are glorious fun, stupidly enjoyable even when they are being stupid, CGI Rock and all.
There was no third movie.

Agreed.

S'funny, i posted this same thing on io9 and got over 100 stars in roughly an hour.

[worry]

Wow, I completely forgot there was a third one.

[Macros]

that's because there wasn't

[Abyss]

Haven't seen this, but apparently at some point the Book of Life from the first Brendan Fraser flic is an Easter Egg.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 13 June 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

Haven't seen this, but apparently at some point the Book of Life from the first Brendan Fraser flic is an Easter Egg.

Which just upsets me.

If you're going to connect it...PROPERLY connect it. Don't throw away an easter egg.

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 13 June 2017 - 04:33 PM, said:

Abyss, on 13 June 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

Haven't seen this, but apparently at some point the Book of Life from the first Brendan Fraser flic is an Easter Egg.

Which just upsets me.

If you're going to connect it...PROPERLY connect it. Don't throw away an easter egg.

It's one of those plastic easter eggs that are hollow and cheap.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 13 June 2017 - 04:50 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 13 June 2017 - 04:33 PM, said:

Abyss, on 13 June 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

Haven't seen this, but apparently at some point the Book of Life from the first Brendan Fraser flic is an Easter Egg.

Which just upsets me.

If you're going to connect it...PROPERLY connect it. Don't throw away an easter egg.

It's one of those plastic easter eggs that are hollow and cheap.

Yeah, with like...a joke or a riddle on a piece of paper inside...instead of candy or chocolate.

Bastards!

[Abyss]

You just know that somewhere, Brendan Fraser is sitting in a messy condo, wearing a gross bathrobe, taking hits off a bong the size of Tom Cruise's ego, and laughing quietly to himself.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 13 June 2017 - 05:22 PM, said:

You just know that somewhere, Brendan Fraser is sitting in a messy condo, wearing a gross bathrobe, taking hits off a bong the size of Tom Cruise's ego, and laughing quietly to himself.

I would imagine that's accurate, and kudos to him. He made a series of Mummy movies I still love.

BTW, if you can ignore the 3rd film being on there....they JUST released a new BluRay set which includes THE MUMMY, THE MUMMY RETURNS, THE MUMMY 3, and THE SCORPION KING for $30.

So that's 2 damned good movies, and one fun super cheesy one (SCORPION) plus a bonus disc of special features for $30. Not too shabby, I'd pay that for the first two films anyways...so I ordered it.

[Aptorian]

Scorpion King takes place like 5,000 years ago or something, so I doubt you could create an excuse for having Fraser in the film.

[Abyss]

Sure, but she was the reincarnation of his daughter's high priestess's bodyguard's something something hey look mummy-zombies!!!!

[Macros]

Wasnt brendan fraiser flat broke recently due to alimony payments or something?

[Aptorian]

I think that was the past 10 years of his life or something.

[QuickTidal]

It sounds like his ex-wife, was to be paid an insane $900,000 per year in alimony/child support...an ungodly sum of alimony to have to pay for such a thing. And her job is "unemployed actress" who hasn't worked since 2003.

I'm going to go on record and state that I'd side with Fraser in this...as asking for $50,000-75,000 a month (whatever the actual number is, I've seen both) in support is in such a realm of crazy that I can't fathom it. I mean, if you and three kids can't live on less than $50,000 a month....you're doing something VERY wrong.

[worry]

I don't think alimony is decided based on minimum subsistence levels, for good reason. Also there's nothing wrong with being a stay-at-home parent.

Of course that's a separate question from whether anyone should have that kind of money.

[Macros]

Apparently he was happy to pay the 300k a year child maintenance, but after an injury his career nose dived and he couldn't afford the 900k a year alimony, look at all the shit films he did in 2013

[QuickTidal]

worry, on 13 June 2017 - 07:31 PM, said:

I don't think alimony is decided based on minimum subsistence levels, for good reason.

Firstly, we aren't talking about regular alimony, nor did anyone mention subsistence. I said that if this woman and her three kids can't live on $50,000 a month...that's no ones problem but hers. That's an absolute certainty. I know this because my dad nearly put himself in the poorhouse meeting the demands the court set out for him to pay my mom for herself and us (and that was $5,000 a month, which I believe left him with but a fraction of what he made to house and feed himself). As it stood he bought next to nothing for himself for nearly a decade trying to make sure we had the things we needed in life. The difference between regular alimony that the average joe has to pay...and what's being spoken about here is night and day. So let's not conflate the two things. What Fraser freely said he could pay per year was less, but still huge amount. Let's be straight, there are working families (both parents in careers) that make a fraction of this, and live decently-to-well. So the idea that you can conflate typical alimony with what this spouse was demanding (and she was demanding it, since she took him to court to hang onto her alimony per year when he wished it dropped because he wasn't bringing in as much money), is just really silly.

worry, on 13 June 2017 - 07:31 PM, said:

Also there's nothing wrong with being a stay-at-home parent.

Please point me where I said that there was anything wrong with it. My mom was a stay at home mom...who received alimony (and went to school, and eventually entered the work force again), so I come at this from a place of knowing. Again, I said "if you can't live on less than $50,000" a month....you have a problem that is not your spouses to fix. My mom did it on $5,000/month while not initially working, and we lived fine. My mom also went back to school and made a new career for herself in the interim time too.

worry, on 13 June 2017 - 07:31 PM, said:

Of course that's a separate question from whether anyone should have that kind of money.

Is it? In my statement I am very MUCH saying that it's NOT a separate issue when dealing with those kinds of funds. It's in a realm that is quite abnormal, and as such should be discussed as a whole.

From all I've read about this, the whole thing broke him. And I can understand why. The woman he married turned into a money-grubbing villain after they split...refusing to accept an amount of money that some high-powered CEO's dream to make a year....instead wanting the cheque to stay at the near million that was initially set out when Fraser still had it to give.

I'm glad he's seeing work again, as I think he's a fantastic actor. I feel bad that the fact that he stuck to his guns on being in THE MUMMY 3, and then Director Stephen Sommers bailed out, so did Rachel Weisz (last minute), and they brought that card-carrying HACK Rob Cohen on to shoot it, and Smallville assholes Alfred Gough and Miles Millar in to script it. Oh, and let's not forget Cohen's desire to make Maria Bello's Evy be different from Rachel Wiesz Evy...because yeah...changing the fundamentals of one of your two lead characters personalities keeps with continuity, sure! Ugh. It was a perfect storm of awful that stemmed from Sommers not having written the script, and went bad from there...and through it all Fraser stuck by it as he felt he should do so. He's just a really genuine guy from all I've heard, and MUMMY 3 sank his career fast.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 14 June 2017 - 12:34 PM