Jump to content

Talk:The Mummy (1999 film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Spelling

Is there any source for the spelling "Hamunaptra"? It seems obvious that it was supposed to be "Hymenoptera", which is the scientific classification for certain insects. Ken Arromdee 18:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

In the scene of the film which begins with an army fighting in Hamunaptra there is a subtitle that spells it that way. Also the subtitles on my DVD spell it that way. Borb 22:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

3rd Mummy Movie

Is there another source stating that a 3rd Mummy movie is in the works? I went to the link given, but it is pretty dubious. Not to mention old. It dates back to 2002.--*Kat* 06:56, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Updated. --Ross UK 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Plot Summary

I reworked the plot summary, though there are a few lagging parts in it. To kill the mummy Evelyn reads from a book, I'm on vacation I can't view my copy of the movie to find out which book she reads from, if somebody could clarify and reword it so that it sounds better I would appreciate it. --ImmortalGoddezz 02:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Its the golden book of Amun-Ra and it does not kill him per say, just strips him of his imortality so he can be killed (by a spear).

Actually he is killed by a sword. :P HuronKing

Jerry Goldsmith's response to the score

After checking a review for the score of "The Mummy Returns", Dan Goldwasser, the reviewer, states the following:

"But composer Jerry Goldsmith didn't come back. After making some very public negative comments about The Mummy, it's not surprising that he wouldn't want to return for the sequel." [1]

I'm not sure where he heard of this, but I think it's important to add this information on the "Soundtrack" section or at least on Jerry Goldsmith's article. And besides, I would like to know why he (Goldsmith) didn't like this score. --Surten (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Surten

The book of Amun-Ra

Do we even need this section? I cleaned it up a little bit, but it just seems superfluous, unless there are connections to it and an Egyptian artifact in real life.

I agree. I've cut it out of the main article and pasted it here so that if people are interested they can at least read it here. --J.D. 20:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
People generally don't check the talk page for more information about the topic. Your reasoning is not just off, but laughable. If it is deemed worthy of reading at all, it should be in the article. I think this information can be integrated into the plot without having it's own section. ColdFusion650 22:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, hey, all the more power to ya! --J.D. 13:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Book of Amon-Ra

The book of Amon-Ra, also called The Book of the Living, is a fictional book seen in both "Mummy" films. It is made completely of gold and it "takes life away" — in the film it is used to make Imhotep mortal, apparently by sending his soul to the underworld. It was found in the base of the statue of Horus. Like The Book of the Dead, it was protected by a trap using pressurized "salt acid," however, the scene depicting this in the movie was cut. In this scene, Rick and Ardeth Bey are about to open the statue when the mummy guards push them away from the base. Therefore, the spray catches the mummies, allowing Rick and Ardeth the opportunity to retrieve the book.

During the collapse of Hamunaptra it was dropped and lost. It bears similarities to the non-fictional Book of the Dead.

Broken

Not an editor but the pics are broken ~ ~ ~

........Zelda References? Hweh?

"Video game references are made throughout the movie. The easiest one to spot is the Zelda reference as O'Connell wields a golden sword while he fights the mummies at the pyramid."

I don't see this as a Zelda, let alone video game, reference. And there being throughout the movie I doubt. Can someone look into this?

I agree... Time to be bold.

Fan pages

Why are there outdated fan pages listed in the external links? They contribute nothing more than the other "official" sites, and they are more focused on the page owner's fiction and preferance than the original movies. Fan site advertisement seems a little below Wikipedia's standard, IMHO. I'd understand if these sites kept a count on the latest rumors of the project, but they're so outdated they're growing mold. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.250.246.42 (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Evelyn/Eve's name

After reading the article, I thought the use of the name Evelyn is not the 'common' name that the character uses. Eve is used mostly throughout the film. Don't know if anybody agrees or disagrees with me. Discuss! 86.139.224.101 23:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever Religion Works

I noticed that just as Beni agrees to help the mummy, he takes serveral chains around his neck and cycle thru them in an effort to save his life. Does enyone know what the religions he was chanting to were? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.250.130.215 (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

I may have misunderstood your question, because the answer to it seems a little too simple; He held up a Christian cross, an Islamic symbol, a Buddha figure and finally the Jewish star symbol. He also had a pendant of the Hindu god Shiva on him, but Beni didn't spare him a prayer. Meresankh 20:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I knew about the cross and the jewish star but i could'nt make out the other 2 symbols. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.250.130.215 (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Remake of Karlov's Mummy?

Is there a source citing this? It seems to be more influenced in plot and design by the Hammer Film. 70.236.33.253 21:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

In reviewing this article (following the Good Article criteria I've read through it a few times, and, although there are some things that need improvement, I don't feel that any of them keep it from becoming a Good Article. Going over the individual points:

  1. Well Written? Yes, the prose is clear and there are no glaring grammar or spelling mistakes.
  2. Factually accurate? I believe that all of the contentious statements are referenced.
  3. Broad in coverage? I believe that the soundtrack section should be expanded with more prose, but lists are allowed, so I have no reason to fail it because of that section. Additionally, there should probably be a section on the spin-offs (movies, tv series, roller coasters) since they are mentioned in the lead. The article is broad in coverage of the film, but these two sections need to be added/expanded upon if this is to become a Featured Article later.
  4. NPOV? Yes, the reception section gives both positive and negative reviews.
  5. Stable? Yes, no edit wars or anything going on lately.
  6. Images? Though unfree, all three images are important to illustrate the article.

So, the article passes. If anyone is going to attempt to make this a Featured Article those few improvements may help it pass. Congratulations on Good Article status. If anyone feels that this review is in error, please take this to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Phydend (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Note the reference section has some variations in style and should be consistent in the use of a format including dates. Please note that variances should not appear. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC).

Historical Issues

Someone's put some funny things in, eg "During one scene within the tomb, a glass mirror is used to illuminate a vast room filled with treasure. This film is concerned with the reign of Seti I of the Middle Kingdom, but glass technology did not exist in Egypt until the reign of Tuthmosis III in the New Kingdom.[41]" <-- This is wrong; Seti was a king AFTER Thutmosis III in the New Kingdom. I've removed all of this.122.106.209.26 (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone undid my changes citing them being "unconstructive". Just to clarify, what I removed was crap. (see post above)122.106.209.26 (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The point is moot since the movie depicted polished metal mirrors and not glass. Terry (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The method itself, using reflected light, doesn`t work anywhere near as well as it is portrayed in this & other movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.14.161 (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

brought back some material

if there were any problems with it, cool, it just seemed liked well sourced material with a cursory inspection.Londo06 20:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

David Fuchs (talk · contribs) removed external links from the article, saying that he was cleaning it up. A follow-up edit summary from him cites WP:ELNO, and I do not agree with this. The external links that were removed, save for the last one, have been widely accepted by the community as resources that provide content that go beyond the encyclopedic article. Sometimes the resources can be cited in the article body, such as the percentage from Rotten Tomatoes, but RT is also useful as an external link since it hosts more reviews than can realistically be added to any one film article. IMDb and AMG provide comprehensive cast and crew information that would be too indiscriminate for the article body; the same goes for Box Office Mojo and its box office statistics. Can it be pointed out where WP:ELNO applies? —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are already used as references; IMDB isn't a reliable source, so I have no idea why we're linking to it; And allmovie doesn't have any info beyond this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
However, Metacritic, RT, Box Office Mojo and IMDB are all listed as viable External Links in the WikiProject_Films/Style guidelines. Unless those guidelines are being revised, it seems to me that can be legitimately included.--J.D. (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The guidelines do not contest redundancy. The article cites the overviews of the film presented by Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. This makes them 2 of the 40 references used for the article body. These websites provide much more than just the overviews, having collections of reviews. This permits them to be highlighted as external links under WP:ELYES. For IMDb, the argument has been that it is not reliable to cite in the article body. WP:EL mentions that reliable sourcing criteria, but notice that it does not explicitly say, "External links must be reliable sources." IMDb has a lot of different sections. Its cast and crew information for most films is not too disputable, and it has forums where cinephiles can discuss films. AMG provides a web of keywords so similar items can be found (think of it as the article's "See also" link). (after edit conflict) J.D., the MOS may say so, but I think it would help David to understand why they are viable external links. I hope I have done that above, David. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
A WikiProject's guidelines don't really matter in the grand scheme of things, considering they are made by a small group of editors for a small group of editors; if they contradict anything higher, they can be removed, so let's look at this on a case by case basis. Per WP:EL, sites which are not reliable sources may be considered, but also states that "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research"- we can't vouch for much of IMDB's content. Also, RT and Metacritic are not being used to cite the overview of the film, only their output of critic consensus. As allnet sites are still disputed as reliable sources, there is no reason to link to it as all content is covered in the article. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the guidelines should be dismissed if there is no real conflict between them and WP:EL. Like it has been said, the external links provide content beyond what the article can offer. For example, for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, "output of critic consensus" is what I meant by overview. But this isn't the only piece of information offered. Both websites provide a collection of reviews so readers, after reading the Wikipedia article, can explore various reactions in-depth. IMDb is not notoriously shoddy in the world. A lot of the information is probably okay, but due to reliance on user submissions that lack transparency, we don't know for sure, which is why we don't use it in Wikipedia articles. Despite this, it is still a popular website that has different parts. For example, Wikipedia would not endorse the trivia pages, but it would be OK with credits pages as shared by the distributors. The primary URL is just given instead of trying to analyze the whole website part by part. Lastly, we're not citing Allmovie as a reliable source in the article body. Like I said, it shows connections between the presented film and similar films. We all know that the "See also" section is subject to editorial judgment, so this just provides an off-wiki web of suggestions so readers can come back to Wikipedia and check out a movie related to The Mummy. I really think that they should be restored. Sometimes the links won't apply. For very old films, there may not be RT or MC or BOM websites, but The Mummy is contemporary enough to have additional detail to the encyclopedic write-up. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The reliability of IMDb is a separate question and there is no general consensus about it on WP. It is a valid source once it's about solid data but considered not that serious when it comes to trivia, but since trivia should be avoided on WP all together, that is not even an issue. However, it is the current general consensus among WikiProject_Films participants that IMDb and AMG etc. should be added to external links sections. In case anybody wishes to challenge this, please take it up @ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films. until it has not happened, the removed external links should be restored as something that serves the interest of WP readers and therefore should be available in the article. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Mummy Wikia

There is a Wikia page dedicated to "The Mummy" films and series that currently could use some new users, to all those who are interested.--KnowledgeLord (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandal Alert

Someone here hates this movie so much as to vandalize this article and turn it into an anti-Mummy rant. The vandal also said that whoever liked The Mummy should get shot immediately, which is hurtful to a lot of people such as myself, who has seen and enjoyed all three movies. Liking a movie is not a reason to get shot. Such juvenile behavior should not be allowed. I mean, I hate Twilight with a burning passion, but I don't vandalize the Twilight article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.113.209 (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Billy Zane's not in The Mummy

{{editsemiprotected}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyer9380 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 March 2010

Correct, he is not; I found a reference and corrected it. Apparently, Arnold Vosloo played Imhotep, and they look alike.  Chzz  ►  07:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done

P.S. i was surprised at this error in a Featured Article, but upon checking, the FA version did have the correct name.  Chzz  ►  08:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
A possibility for why the vandals are making this change; a recent episode of the USA network show, Psych featured Vosloo and the cast regulars made running jokes about the resemblance the entire episode. I'm just throwing it out there so that you have an idea of the why. If it starts happening again after the protection times out, I'd check the rerun listings for Psych. Or, you know, they could just be big goobers. Who knows. Millahnna (mouse)talk 10:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Soundtracks

I'd like to invite anyone interested in this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Discussion. It is discussing the subject of if all soundtrack covers should be removed from there source pages, and the album info required to appear on it's own page. (Floppydog66 (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC))

Sahara/Morocco The first few lines of this article, yeah, where it says the film crew began filming in Marrakech, Morocco while in the Sahara desert, is whoever wrote this article one hundred percent sure that that desert even runs into Morocco? ~EgyptKEW9~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptKEW9 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the soundtrack

A user recently WP:BOLDly split the soundtrack into its own article leaving the FA with a rather large gap in its coverage of the soundtrack. I have undone this change because I think the discussion of the soundtrack is best made on the article about the film rather than on a separate article. Some topics which may be notable are best discussed in a broader context, and I believe that is the case here. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I would agree; unless sources are presented that can significantly expand information about the development, writing, recording, use, and reception of the soundtrack, I don't think it stands well on its own. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I reinstated the image but with a different cover for reasons I gave here; Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Discussion, as there seems to still be only 'Partial Consensus' on how such things are to be handled.(Floppydog66 (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC))
This is a different issue. A file was recently deleted for failing WP:NFCC#3a because it nearly duplicated the poster here. I don't think the soundtrack cover adds any value to the article, and it violates NFCC#3a. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
That's why there is a on going discussion on the Soundtracks, to decide; if, what, and when policies are broken by them. (Floppydog66 (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC))
For this case, the cover is clearly decorative. If it can easily be replaced with another cover, then neither are needed and no cover should be shown (WP:NFCC#8 and #3a). --Odie5533 (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek BGM?

During a scene where the mummies are advancing, it starts playing a background theme from the Original Star Trek. It`s used for tense encounters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.14.161 (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Mummy (1999 film). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 02:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Mummy (1999 film). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 04:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Mummy_(1999_film)/Archive_1&oldid=1137238776"