Talk:The Mummy Returns

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fsanchez18. Peer reviewers: Tridley4, TonyPJs, Lcerone, Gman802, Lserrano60.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

The Mummy Returns is set in 1936, not 1933 despite the '1933' subtitle, which is a mistake. The first Mummy movie has O'Connell's battle for Humunaptra scene in 1923 and the next scene is "3 Years Later" where Evelyn is introduced. The Mummy Returns is intended to be set 10 years after the end of The Mummy and the guys who made the subtitles clearly forgot about the '3 years later' thing. If The Mummy Returns was set in 1933 then Alex would be only 6 years old but he's obviously older.

The second film takes place nine years after the first. The scene where the bounty hunters are on the train delivering the cursed chest to Anck-Su-Namun and Hafez alludes to the first film when the lead bounty hunter says "I heard the Yanks who found it NINE years ago all died." Alex O'Connell also states that he is eight years old several times in the film. Juggernautthunderclap (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imhotep Speaking English[edit]

I removed the trivia about Imhotep speaking English because he wasn't really doing so. Rather than switching to English literally, it is a movie trick. Rather than continue in subtitles for an extended conversation, which can bore or irritate some fans, Imhotep established that Alex understood his ancient Egyptian, and then the writers transitioned between Egyptian and English. It is supposed to be understood that the conversation was carried on in ancient Egyptian. Ladyeternal 09/30/2006 20:45

Plot Summary reconstruction[edit]

Recently, changes made to the plot page have been rewritten to read as the current page looks. ColdFusion has defended these changes saying that "while you made it longer, that's not always a good thing, especially since there's no new important information." I was unaware of any wikipedia length cap, and thought that the goal was complete information, not just a quick summary. This is an encyclopedia, after all. I'd like the following text to be considered for re-integration. Thanks. URL to changed content: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mummy_Returns&diff=138439944&oldid=138438618 63.120.61.9 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no cap. However, making that section longer just for the sake of having it longer is a bad thing. I think anyone will agree. I'm pretty sure that's policy or a guideline, although I can't lay my hands on it at the moment. If you want to add new information, go right ahead. Your previous edit had no new information, and that's why it was reverted. ColdFusion650 20:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found it. Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured. Good articles: Major topics are covered with no unnecessary details. Featured articles: Appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. ColdFusion650 20:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. While this will likely never make it to "Featured Article" status, I don't think that any of my changes harbor "unnecessary details" outside of the canon of the film/series. When it comes to the plot of a film, *any* plot-related details, ie- not what the character was wearing, or where they were holding their hands when they said it, would be relevant and not unnecessary. Am I wrong? HolyMadjai 20:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the longer version, fwiw. If nothing else, it's written better (why not leave some of the grammatical changes at least?) --drue 20:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, take a look at other film plot summaries. They contain similar plot outlines as the rewrite. The Matrix, Titanic, Spiderman 3 for example. If none of the information is wrong, and it is all canon as far as the film is concerned, I don't understand the harm to being well-documented. HolyMadjai 20:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changes that most definitely need to be made-
  • "Exactly 5000 years in the future, 1933, where we rejoin the O'Connells eight years after their previous adventure." - This is not a sentence.
  • "Despite his new disadvantage, Imhotep summons the Scorpion King before he is interrupted by Rick, telling him that he is a loyal servant, prompting the Scorpion King to focus his wrath on Rick." the phrase "..is interrupted by Rick, telling him that he is a loyal servant..." makes it sound like Rick is the one telling the Scorpion King that Rick is the loyal servant, which is not the case.
  • "He is captured by Imhotep, who has been resurrected again by his love Anck-Su-Namun, in order to lead him to the oasis." - Very misleading, since it is Imhotep's servants who capture the boy, not Imhotep himself.
  • "Rick sees a series of hieroglyphics on the walls, and realizes how to kill the Scorpion King; a scepter that Jonathan has been carrying is the Spear of Osiris, which is the only weapon that can kill the Scorpion King." - This is out of chronological order, since it is BEFORE Rick enters the hall of the Scorpion King that he sees the heiroglyphs.
There are more, but I think this illustrates the point. HolyMadjai 20:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your first is definitely true. What about "Exactly 5000 years in the future, in 1933, we rejoin the O'Connells eight years after their previous adventure"? Just take out the "where". Your second could go "Despite his new disadvantage, Imhotep summons the Scorpion King, before he is interrupted by Rick. Imhotep feigns allegiance to the Scorpion King, causing him to focus his wrath on Rick. While this is happening Alex finds the book of the dead and revives his mother, who then attacks Anck-Su-Namun." Your third, I'm not so sure about. Hitler didn't conquer Europe, his minions did. He wasn't personally in the field. It's common to attribute the sanctioned actions of subordinates to their leader. On the fourth, I'm pretty sure that it's after. My plot edits of May 24 were done while watching the movie. And just for clarity, HolyMadjai is the newly registered user from 63.120.61.9, right? ColdFusion650 21:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point one- There isn't much difference between what you have above, and what's there now: "Exactly 5000 years in the future, (1933) we rejoin the O'Connells eight years after their initial adventure." Though... now I question my own comma usage (should be after the parenthesis, yes?)
Point two- Your phrasing of "Imhotep feigns allegiance to the Scorpion King, causing him to focus his wrath on Rick." is still ambiguous, as it sounds like Imhotep is focusing his wrath on Rick, not the SK. Current phrasing is: "...the Scorpion King awakens and begins to fight Imhotep, who bows to the Scorpion King, pretending fealty and claiming that Rick is the true usurper." Which gives us the fun usage of both the words fealty and usurper. Which I love. :)
Point three- I kinda see where you're at on this one, and I can see it both ways. I think that for clarity's sake, it's just as easy to say that his followers did this, especially considering that at the point Alex is abducted Imhotep hasn't yet been resurrected. (This happens later on the train)
Point four- Could be right. I may have to go back to the source material. In my head, Rick is walking through the halls of the temple with a torch, and he sees the heiroglyphs, but doesn't understand what they mean until Jonathan walks into the chamber with the scepter.
And for clarity's sake, Yes. I keep trying to log in with my old "TheMadjai" account, but the new password sent by wikipedia doesn't work, so I created a new account. HolyMadjai 22:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think use of parenthesis should be limited, especially with short things like that. In my opinion, parenthesis don't look professional and should only be used when necessary. "Imhotep feigns allegiance to the Scorpion King, who then focuses his wrath on Rick." Now it's clear, I hope. If you've ever seen Ocean's 11, he says "Don't use seven words when four will do." Your way is 25 and mine is 14, and they both mean the same thing. I guess I could go either way on point 3. However, both of our versions say the same thing. He is captured by Imhotep. So, your version would have to be modified also. On point 4, I definitely remember that he realized what the hieroglyphs meant immediately. I believe that while fighting the Scorpion King, he was thrown against a wall and then saw what written on the wall. He then yells to Jonathan that the scepter is a spear. ColdFusion650 23:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, changes have been made regarding all points. While the suggestion to be concise, citing Ocean's Eleven as a reference is a little dubious, I don't dispute that in some cases, less is more. However, I would contend that as much detail as possible is beneficial regarding film plot, as wikipedia is a reference source, as well as the fact that for one reason or another, this page is part of wikipedia's effort to expand the knowledge base on Ancient Egypt and Horror movies, per the banners above. While a comic/adventure movie such as this might not be the best source for legitimate information on such topics, that's not for me to decide, but rather the community. HolyMadjai 15:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you won't take Ocean's 11, take WP:MOSFILMS#Plot, the wikiproject films manual of style. "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words..." Your's is almost 1100. The way it was before is large at almost 800. As I said before, I have no problem with adding new information, but all you did was reword everything to make it longer. That is bad. It slows down the reader. Ever read a book that was just wordy and made you tired? It's supposed to get to the point quickly. I'm applying the changes we discussed to the old version. If there is something important that you think should be in there, apart from what we already discussed, please post them. ColdFusion650 15:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Is it just me, or...[edit]

Do Rick and Ardeth, armed to the teeth, watch the last minutes of Imhotep's resurrection, and don't do anything at all to prevent it? 10/10 for style, I guess... Mdiamante 20:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A link resource[edit]

Six questions with the director —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdiamante (talk • contribs) 00:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retcon of Imohtep's Origin[edit]

In the first film, they depict Imohtep as the Pharaoh. In this film, they depict him as the Pharaoh's priest. We should mention this somewhere in the film. Also, there should be mention about Nefritite (sp?) and the whole reincarnation situations. Arnabdas (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imhotep was not the Pharaoh in the first movie. Remember? He was cursed for sleeping with and trying to resurect Pharoah's mistress. Emperor001 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scarabs/Scorpions[edit]

Who keeps saying that Anck-su-amun fell into a pit of scarabs. I have had to correct this at least 3 or 4 times. She fell into a pit of scorpions. Think! The novelisation says scorpions, this happened in the Scorpion King's tomb, and if you look closely, they are scorpions. I just watched the movie again in preparation for the new movie. Scarabs are in Hamunaptra, Scorpions are in Ahm Share. Whoever is doing this, please stop. Emperor001 (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If people do not stop changing this, I will request that this page be protected. Emperor001 (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Confusing editions release[edit]

So is this movie same as "Mummy: Unleash the Beast", because I heard this was one of the standalone series (I think it was not suppose to be an uncut movie). Note that there is a difference between uncut movie and extra scenes.

reference. --Ramu50 (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here there be vandals[edit]

I'm afraid that some weirdos decided to vandalize the article and talk about how much they dislike this movie. Seriously, they should act their age. I mean, I really hate Twilight but I don't vandalize the Twilight articles talking about how much I hate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.113.209 (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novel[edit]

There's an aspect of the story that wasn't included on the film, but is in the novel - the Scorpion King has the skin on part of his head sliced off to show his skull, and doing so is a sign of loyalty among his servants. This is how Hafez manages to get past the pygmies in the jungle, he slices his scalp to show he serves the Scorpion King. This is also how Imhotep convinces the Scorpion King he is also his servant in the climax. Would this be important enough to add to the article anywhere? The Clawed One (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's not in the movie, it probably doesn't have a place - unless you'd like to add a full section for the novel, and include plenty of page citations for key differences. :) Best, Mdiamante (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have the novel anymore, I only remember this part because it wasn't in the film. :p The Clawed One (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronisms[edit]

Regarding the scene featuring the double-decker bus; If the bus used is a Routemaster it was not put into use in England until 1956, 23 years after the occurances of this film. --RedKnight (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Mummy Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planning to expand the page.[edit]

It seems like that there was no production section, and I feel like that it should be a production and development section of why The Mummy Returns exists. Stephenfisher2001 (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but you're not going to get very far in your efforts if you don't provide citations when you add information. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Mummy_Returns&oldid=1195658031"