Over the previous few days, tales have been written (together with on this web site) about how Alex Kurtzman, the director of the brand new sequence The Man Who Fell to Earth, actually feels about engaged on 2017’s The Mummy within the wake of a brand new Bingeworthy podcast interviewing the director. Not an enormous shock, however he feels… not nice about it!

Ultimately, it seems that the Dark Universe was doomed from the beginning, as executives and creatives clashed over essentially the most primary of storytelling choices. Kurtzman advised Bingeworthy that “[The Mummy] was probably the biggest failure of my life, both personally and professionally. There are about a million things I regret about it… I didn’t become a director until I made that movie, and it wasn’t because it was well directed–it was because it wasn’t.” Star Tom Cruise was additionally allegedly on the helm of quite a lot of the movie, even going as far as to inform Kurtzman tips on how to direct, in response to a report in Variety.

In a current interview with Eric Heisserer (who was slated to take over Van Helsing if Universal’s Dark Universe had ever panned out) on the Playlist, Heirsserer dug into the chaos of the pitch conferences at Universal: “You had a lot of voices and none of them could agree on much. Much like when I’d visit my relatives for Thanksgiving and everyone’s arguing with each other.”

Look, I can’t consider I’m going to bat for a Tom Cruise motion automobile meant to leap begin (one more) huge franchise whereby distinct mental properties are tied collectively in a knot of Gordian proportions, however right here I’m. The Mummy wasn’t a nasty movie! It simply didn’t make any cash and suffered, as has been acknowledged earlier than, from a company’s eagerness to earn a living off different properties to the detriment of the story it was initially making an attempt to inform.

If you chop out the info-dumpy scenes the place Russell Crowe (Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde) introduces the Dark Universe to Tom Cruise (as Nick Morton), you’ve got a good 90-minute blockbuster that’s acquired first rate results, doesn’t attempt to be 1999’s The Mummy, and brings somewhat little bit of horror to the display screen. I take pleasure in something Jake Johnson does, I used to be content material to observe Cruise do his factor, and I’ll admit it, I like to see Sofia Boutella win. And, to be sincere, if the entire plot of the story is “a secret society of modern Crusaders gets its comeuppance after stealing one too many sacred artifacts”—like… that’s additionally not a nasty throughline to comply with.

The truth is {that a} movie that financially flops doesn’t essentially imply that it’s a nasty movie. But once you’re Universal Pictures and also you’ve acquired Cruise because the star? Maybe you are taking it somewhat personally. The Mummy was a little bit of an odd selection for a contemporary reboot, contemplating how beloved the 1999 movie is (to not point out the 1932 Boris Karloff unique), however it stood by itself, barely even acknowledging the Brendan Fraser cult traditional, which might be for the very best. This wasn’t nostalgia bait, and it actually didn’t attempt to be. It was a blockbuster, and whereas heavy-handed, I don’t suppose it deserved the overwhelmingly harsh criticism it obtained from all sides. It was campy and it had conviction. What extra would you like out of a creature function?

Did I wish to see the remainder of the Dark Universe after popping out of The Mummy? No. I don’t significantly mourn the lack of Johnny Depp’s Invisible Man or a reboot of Van Helsing. (Pour one out for Karyn Kusama’s misplaced Mina Harker, although.) But would I’ve paid cash to observe Javier Bardem as Frankenstein’s monster? In a second. At least we now have Nicolas Cage as Dracula to sit up for.

Want extra io9 information? Check out when to count on the newest Marvel and Star Wars releases, what’s subsequent for the DC Universe on movie and TV, and every part you have to learn about House of the Dragon and Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power.