Talk:The Mummy (1999 film)

Featured article standing

Currently, this aritcle does not appear to be up to quality to be a featured article on Wikipedia. I've listed some quibbles below.

• Some citations do not seem to correlate to their source, specifically, the genre citation in the lead calls it a "horror action hybrid", not an action-adventure as currently stated.
• Several cast and crew members mentioned in the infobox are unsourced and not mentioned anywhere in the article.
• Is the Scorpion King" a spin-off or a prequel? It suggests both but it is not cited in the article either.
• Premiere is being discussed at screening at Universal City. What is this? It's not cited in the article.
• Several additions have been made to sourced material over the years (particularly in production), and its not clear if it was actually part of the original article as seen here.
• Awards section and roller coaster section has no sources whatsoever.
• Some citations, specifically the video game adaptation, is sourced to a bare-URL.

These items need to be fixed or this article risks being pushed for a Featrued Article review to see if it still holds ground. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Cast information that can simply be found in the credits doesn't need additional citations. Likewise, for the genre you're talking about a citation to a book about action adventure films. That you could call it beyond that an action horror film as a subgenre is kind of irrelevant (and we've had people edit-warring for years over that nonsense.) Beyond that I'm happy to revert the cruft additions that have been added over the years; there's only so much I can keep on top of. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not the cast information that was the issue, it was more of the technical team. As for the genre, I understand it being edit warred, it should either come to a conesnsus, or at least match the source in question. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

While I think credits for anybody involved in a film, even the crew, don't need citations as, you know, they're credited in the film, I agree with a lot of this. Plus, subsections in the release and reception are lacking info from many other contemporaneous sources and suffer from quote farm tendencies (although the opinions in the legacy section look well put together). I mean, come on, newspaper sources at the time discuss trends in the film and bring up films by the biggest studios in doing so, including The Mummy; I can say this cause I have experience editing and reading other WP film articles. Also, I think there's more sources and details to add for the production section too. At best, this is just GA quality. HumanxAnthro (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• @HumanxAnthro: and @Andrzejbanas: might be helpful to have you revisit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Wow, things surely improved since months after I commented here. I'd have to read the sources to see how well the prose represents them, and if there are other sources the article is missing, but we're definitely headed in the right direction. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2021

Mention the genre as: action, adventure, fantasy film instead of just American film.

don't post replies as, not done, change x to y, give sources

Action, adventure, fantasy

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120616/

Action, Fantasy, Adventure

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1087270-mummy 2402:3A80:1C40:3AF7:60E8:CB19:9ECD:38AA (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Note: the text which is being proposed was removed by Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) on 27 January with the reason: “removed citation for genre in the lead which was making a hybrid of genres based on two of the three mentioned genres in the article”. DigitalChutney (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: IMDB is not a reliable source (user-generated content); and I'm unsure about Rotten Tomatoes on this exact aspect (it's reliable for other bits, though), but it only says "Action/Fantasy"; no mention of "adventure". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2021

The genre needs to be mentioned. If IMDB is not reliable then use reliable. Those who edited this page, they can discuss and come to a conclusion. Don't close this as "not done"

https://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-mummy

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl3546646017/

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1087270-mummy

All mention action, adventure, fantasy. 2402:3A80:1A40:5CBA:CD94:EB12:93A6:FBFD (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)

how will this consensus be established, where, and who are those editors who will take part in consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:1A40:5CBA:A53E:C1EA:CBAB:9275 (talk • contribs)

Consensus for genre

Those who are interested please comment what is the genre of this film.

1- action, adventure, fantasy

2- action, adventure

3- action, adventure, horror

4- adventure, horror

--2402:3A80:1A40:5CBA:A53E:C1EA:CBAB:9275 (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is derived not from pure voting, but consensus. The relevant question is what do the preponderance of reliable sources describe the film as? Sommers himself in the article describes it as a romantic adventure movie with horror elements, not a horror film per se. The 2019 book The Mummy on Screen: Orientalism and Monstrosity in Horror Cinema describes it as action-adventure. I think really the safest thing I can say looking at sources is that it's not a horror film. "Fantasy" seems less used as a descriptor than straightforward "adventure". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia

I am planning on recording a spoken word .ogg version of this article for the WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. This will be my first contribution to the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRennocks (talk • contribs) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The article has been recorded! I've done my best to add it in the proper format, but if I've got anything wrong, a kind correction would be appreciated. JRennocks (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes consensus

@David Fuchs: Yesterday I added the consensus from Rotten Tomatoes for this film because that's what we generally do on our film articles. The consensus provides the reader with a brief summary of how critics felt about the film, much like our nutshell template. Now, it's understandable on some articles not to include the consensus, such as Gods of Egypt, since that film's consensus was found to be too comically poetic. But there's nothing about The Mummy's consensus that warrants its exclusion; it's brief and it provides a decent summary of what most critics thought. We should include it. Songwaters (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Cherry-picked examples are not evidence of best practices or guidelines. And they mostly demonstrate why it shouldn't be included—it turns the opening of every critical response paragraph into a paint-by-numbers scheme of "On Rotten Tomatoes this, on Metacritic that" that is boring and incredibly samey to read. Not having the capsule review is the least one can do to try and help with that problem (personally, I'd summarize the critical averages even further, and especially with a 1999 film where Rotten Tomatoes wasn't a major established presence, same with Metacritic, they really shouldn't be given as much space as they are already in this article.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

First off, my examples were not cherry-picked, they were the first nine films I thought of, most of which I hadn't looked at the consensus of before. Second, seeing how virtually every other film on Wikipedia includes the consensus, there doesn't seem to be a consensus that the inclusion of the Rotten Tomatoes summary is "boring" and "samey"; please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not for you but for our readers, many of which undoubtedly find value in knowing the consensus without having to do an extra click to find it. There's no evidence that it's a widespread "problem". Third, it doesn't matter if Rotten Tomatoes was not as major a presence in 1999 as it is today; the consensus still summarizes how critics have generally felt since its release. Songwaters (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that editors try and make every film article read the exact same is a widespread problem, as your examples prove. And yes, trying to pass off the RT score as contemporaneous as the article currently does is also a problem. You have no guideline to furnish saying that the log line of a random uncredited person on Rotten Tomatoes should be given undue weight compared to actual contemporaneous and notable critics. As such, you need to get consensus for such a change here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Patricia Velásquez is missing in starring section

Patricia Velásquez (Anck-su-Namun) is missing in the starring section (below the image). Was that intentional? 2A01:E11:1009:C040:D1C3:2F3F:B233:787E (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The Mummy and The Mummy 2 are two different films. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Character list links

Hello @David Fuchs: I think the [[List of The Mummy (film series) characters# links in this edit should stay. Invasive Spices (talk) 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent reversions

Hello David Fuchs This edit by Harborist reflects the phrase and sources in Gara Medouar. The source that is here now does say "volcano" but that is not correct and they are not experts in that subject.

If O'Connell is O'Connell throughout the film then it will confuse readers to insist upon Rick merely because other characters are referenced that way. That's a strange reason.

All edits for the last month have been your reversions of others. Perhaps it's time to let others edit the article. Invasive Spices (talk) 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Having a laissez faire attitude with random edits is what led to this article significantly degrading, which I then had to spend a ton of time cleaning up. I'm not interested in having to do that again. What is the issue with Gara Medouar? I adjusted the phrasing here, so I'm not sure why that remains an issue. And I'm not going to bother trying delicate surgery to try and salvage bad edits. Beyond the O'Connell, they added unnecessary details throughout. It's not a net positive to the plot section. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

What is the issue with Gara Medouar? I adjusted the phrasing here, so I'm not sure why that remains an issue. I don't know what you adjusted but the volcano phrasing remains. Reverting someone's correction with an edit summary admitting this is a reversion to incorrect phrasing is a strange choice. The massif phrasing has citations in Gara Medouar.

Beyond the O'Connell, they added unnecessary details throughout. One of those unnecessary details was a correction of the 1923 phrasing to the correct 1923 and 1926.

FA does not justify reverting every edit to an article. Invasive Spices (talk) 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Genre clarification

On the talk page above and recently per my edit here, the genre of the film has been a continued source of discussion from new and seasoned editors. While @David Fuchs: suggested genre is established through consensus, MOS:FILMGENRE states "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and reflect what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources."

I've done some digging through reviews, books, and academic articles surrounding the topic of genre about The Mummy and have shared the content here. When searching, I did not try to arbitrarily type in the name of a genre to try and be neutral as possible in the research.

• Entertainment Weekly
  • "In The Mummy, an aggressively eye-popping horror film" source
• Sight and Sound
  • "Universal has been developing a new Mummy for over a decade, with Clive Barker and John Sayles among others attempting scripts. This action-picture retread juggles all the elements, while copping bits of business from almost all previous bandagers."
  • "Director Stephen Sommers (Deep Rising) doesn't skimp on ingredients, but over-eggs the pudding. The high concept was to do The Mummy as a Raiders of the Lost Ark-style period adventure." here
• Austin Chronicle
  • "This ambitious updating by Stephen Sommers (who also helmed the superlative, woefully underseen Deep Rising) makes amends for all that by turning the franchise into an Indiana Jones-style period adventure piece," here
• Paste Magazine
  • "Surprisingly, though, the ’99 Mummy plays more like a monster movie than suggested by its reputation as an adventure movie that dispenses with Imhotep’s rags as soon as possible" here
• The Guardian
• "The Mummy is cheerful, good-natured and entertaining and its cast did engagingly silly things like ride camels through the desert; though the film relies on some dodgy stereotypes, not really palatable despite the 1920s setting. It also mixed live-action and digital fabrication for set-pieces which would now naturally be entirely digital; in fact the franchise involved more and more green-screen work as it continued. It has enormous flair and attack, and it’s an old-fashioned, if paradoxically unadventurous adventure, an anti-Ishtar of box office success." here
• Hollywood Reporter
  • "Writer-director Stephen Sommers’ approach to a project long in the works at the studio is an homage to widescreen epics of the 1950s and ’60s rather than to the earlier black-and-white chillers. The lead has undergone a thorough upgrade, including world-threatening evil powers." here
• The AV Club
  • "There's nothing wrong with a big, noisy action movie, but is there anything worse than a big, noisy action film that's also relentlessly unsatisfying?" here
• BBC
  • "What redeems it now, and possibly for later, are the distinctly old-fashioned thrills of a film that's all about high adventure." "Genre: Action, adventure". here
• Variety
  • " This touring company “Indiana Jones” tries to have it both ways, sending up the adventure genre for laughs while also going for some mild shocks, but the sand slips through its fingers on both counts." source
• IGN
  • "The new, 1999 version of The Mummy blends comedy and action/adventure much more than the suspense/horror/love story of the original." here
• Entertainment Weekly
  • Brendan Fraser, had no idea what kind of film he was in. "We didn't know whether we were making a horror movie, we didn't know if this was an action picture, we didn't know if it was a romance picture”, says the actor. “All of the above? None of the above? We didn’t know. We. Did. Not. Know." here
• The New York Amsterdam News
  • "The 1932 classic screamer starring Bor Karloff. Director Stephen Sommers throwing equal parts of comedy, action, terror and romance into the mix has cooked up the first surprise hit of the summer season. More parody than pure horror, this version reminds me more of the campy Abbott and Costello Mett he Mummy than the original." here
• The Hollywood Action and Adventure Film by Yvonne Tasker
  • "By [the 1970s] historical adventure had become firmly associated with a comic - even camp tone that informed later examples of recycled adventure such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Mummy, and Pirates of the Caribbean." (p. 34)
• "From Karloff to Vosloo: The Mummy Remade" from Popular Culture Review (2002)
  • "The 1999 version of The Mummy, scripted and directed by Stephen Sommers, might best be described as an extension of the popular Indiana Jones series. Upon an initial viewing, one can easily imagine the film titled Indiana Jones Meets the Mummy."
  • "I wanted to do a big roaring romantic adventure movie set in the 1920s, says Sommers, and the whole thing had to be in Egypt. I love the original, but why try to remake it? Why copy it? I wanted to do something different. I wanted to have action and adventure and romance. If you're on a trek for lost treasure in Egypt in the 1920s, and you stumble onto a mummy – it just seemed like an opportunity for a romantic adventure, with characters I really cared about and wanted to pull through."
  • "...character and storyline choices suggest that Sommers is not certain what kind of film he really wants to make, despite claims to the contrary. As a result, The Mummy joins another title of its era, Paul Verhoeven's Hollow Man, as fantasies notable for unraveling the very building blocks that make genre films a treat"

here

• A Companion to the Horror Film, Chapter: "Millennial Fears" by Adam Charles Hart.
  • "The Mummy, a very loose reimagining of Karl Freund's 1932 film in the vein of Spielberg's Indiana Jones films, would be followed by several sequels. As the series progressed, its horror movie origins became even less prominent." (page 333)
  • "Hollywood continued to import horror elements into other genres, or would file away the horrific edges of the source material in order to make the film like The Mummy (1999) or I Am legend (2007) more appeal to boarder international audiences. So while horror - at least in the United States - may or even may not be in a "slump," Hollywood blockbusters have in the 21st Century become a cinema filled with monsters and horror tropes" (page 333)
• The Definitive Guide to Horror Movies (2018) (Kim Newman)
  • "Stephen Sommer's The Mummy (1999), a tiresome film without a whiff of terror or magic, initiated a trend for all-action monster movies, which would eventually crossbreed with the comic-book derived dark superhero films that had been around since The Crow (1994)." (p. 308)

While this is just work I've found this morning discussing the topic. On these terms, I would suggest a section similar to The_Terminator#Genre that we could elaborate on this as clearly, there is enough discussion of the genre for it to merit a closer look and examination similar to Poor Things or The Lighthouse have their own elaborations. I welcome other research and thoughts on this idea before going forward with it, as I do not want to bungle up what is currently an article at featured article status. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey Andrzejbanas, I appreciate you taking the time to go digging. My first thought on discussion of a Genre section is that what you've presented really isn't an argument for such a section's existence. Most of what you pulled isn't talking about The Mummy's genre as a point of contention, so our proposed subsection would just be saying "these guys say this, those gals say that" and feels pretty SYNTHy and UNDUE to give it a whole section without reliable third-party sources (preferably film criticism-focused ones) weighing in on the issue of The Mummy's confused genre itself. Compared to The Terminator, where you have discussion of the type of film The Terminator typifies, and responses and critiques of those discussions, which feels like a much stronger bit of analysis to hang a section on. Otherwise, we're at a point where the threshold would be "some critics call it this, some call it that" (which is where Poor Things feels like it falls right now) and that could be done with virtually any film that comes out, because very rarely is a film so squarely in a single genre that it could not be considered something else by reasonable people. Maybe the right caliber sources do exist and didn't get immediately revealed—I will take a look through JSTOR and the like tonight—but I don't think it equals something much more than potentially a {{efn}} bit if we were trying to avoid more usual genre edit-warring. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I do hear you that it comes off as a complicated contradictions between with SYNTH and WP:WEIGHT. I don't think it has a "confused" genre per-se. Perhaps a section discussing the genre would be a bit much, but from the above, there is discussion comparing it to the 1930s film its based on. This could be a good point to state that critics/academics described it being closer Raiders of the Lost Ark than The Mummy (1932). On attempting to expand articles on action film and adventure film, the main conclusion of these genre was that they were broad and often hybridized since the 1990s and 1970s accordingly, which is something I feel like is not congruent with the MOS:FILM standards as genre categorization becomes complex as film history roles on.

That being said, the current genre in the lead and the categories are not complicit with MOS:FILMGENRE rule either per the research above. I'm not sure what a solution would be, but I'll give you time to weigh in as obviously more discussion and research on this would be really helpful. Thanks @David Fuchs: :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Well from the above it feels like you could have an analysis section with some discussion on the film versus the original, potentially, if there's a bit more than the stray lines (I know you weren't looking for that either way.) I can't speak to the categories, but I'm not entirely sure where FILMGENRE is being disregarded? We can dump "sources call it X" in a note if necessary but far more call it action/adventure than they do straight horror. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh i'm not trying to call it a horror film or advocating for any genre particularly. I'm a bit iffy on calling it action-adventure film as we do have some mentions of a hybrid, its more consistently mentioned as individual genres, not as a hybrid (at least from the searches above, but again, I'll wait for yours or any other editors research). I wouldn't really suggest "John called it this. Jill called it that." for the record, perhaps something to effect of "Critics, academics, historians [whatever] have various described the film as a action, adventure, [whatever]." It's a bit of a complex thing, but like, we'll do further searching to see if there is anything to pull from this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Since the film was re-released this year, there is coverage about the film, and that retrospective coverage may be better than contemporary coverage:

• Collider: "The film, starring Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz, blends action, comedy, and horror to create a modern adventure classic... The movie initially debuted in theaters in the summer of 1999, and since then remains a staple of the action-adventure genre."
• Syfy: "Stephen Sommers' adventure reboot remains a high point of the summer movie experience over the last 25 years... that lets Sommers dive headfirst into a certain kind of adventure movie vibe... The Mummy is an action movie, yes, but it's also a romantic comedy, an adventure comedy, a horror film, and a few other things rolled into one..."
• SlashFilm: "It was an action/adventure film... Sommers' vision for an action-heavy take on a horror classic... It's a mix of light PG-13 horror with Indiana Jones influenced action/adventure storytelling."
• Newsweek: "When The Mummy hit the big screen in 1999, no one predicted the monster success the quirky action-adventure movie would become... The Mummy somehow managed to blend action, horror, comedy and romance... stand out from other adventure movies."
• Paste: "Surprisingly, though, the '99 Mummy plays more like a monster movie than suggested by its reputation as an adventure movie that dispenses with Imhotep’s rags as soon as possible."
• CBC: "action-adventure" a few times
• The Hollywood Reporter: "action film"
• The Guardian: "action-adventure"

I sense that action, adventure, and action-adventure are used pretty interchangeably, and this seems backed at Action film § History. One distinct problem here, though, is that the link action-adventure film does not really go anywhere substantial. (Wikipedia is pretty weak on the genre-article front, like not having a standalone drama film article.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Erik:. While you have used some of the same sources I have, it may be WP:OR to suggest the genre has changed since its first release as there is only one mention of that "Surprisingly, though, the '99 Mummy plays more like a monster movie than suggested by its reputation as an adventure movie", but that seems to be a minority point against the dozen of contemporary sources calling it an adventure film or an action film. To be open, I have been attempting to revamp the genre film articles in the past year or so. That said, action-adventure film previously linked to a section that just said "a film that combines both action and adventure", is not a particularly indepth examination of the genre (while not entirely misleading). Per WP:SOURCETYPES, Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available might be good to apply here as we could use brief one-off sentences from reviews that simply say "action" or focus on ones that go a bit more in-depth on the topic. Lets see what others turn up as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're commenting on my using retrospective coverage in regard to genre change? I meant more in the sense of retrospective coverage being more WP:SECONDARY than the contemporary coverage. It's more high-level, kind of like with how we want to write critical reception sections with reliable sources that talk about the reviews. Books can be part of that retrospective coverage too.

Glad to know about your genre work! These topics feel rather daunting, and it seems like the best sources are books about film genres, which seem less and less previewable online as time goes on. From what I can tell, there do seem to be some good books about the action and/or adventure classifications.

To get back to the point, it sounds like you're not convinced that "action-adventure" is the due-weighted genre here? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion! Yes, while I think using contemporary and/or retrospective citations on examining the film from a genre perspective is warranted, its more that the sources have very brief, sometimes one-off sentences or even words that discuss the genre. I don't want to qualify the reviews, but it seems that nearly all authors, even ones I find on my own are very wary to try to establish a genre for the film. As you pulled out, "a certain kind of adventure movie vibe" and "a mix of light PG-13 horror with Indiana Jones influenced action/adventure storytelling". That said. I've tried to dig out some more from more academic sources with little luck.

That said, I've done some further research and am not really coming up with anything substantial other than more suggestions leaning towards "action-adventure" or at least "its a film in dept to the Indiana Jones series."

• The Mummy (2019) academic text by Doris V. Sutherland
  • ""The remake of The Mummy was finally released in 1999, directed by Stephen Sommers and starring Brendan Fraser as a roguish hero far brasher than Frank Whemple. Although it revives the characters of Imhotep and Anck-es-en-Amon (or Anck-Su-Namun, as the subtitles render her name) and paraphrases a few snatches from John L. Balderston’s script, the film bears little resemblance to its ostensible source. It is somewhat closer in spirit to the comedy-action-spookshow combination of The Mummy's Hand; but at the end of the day, its most obvious inspiration lies with the broad humour, period backdrop and non-stop action of Steven Spielberg’s Indiana Jones series."
• "Heroes, Mummies, and Treasure: Near Eastern Archaeology in the Movies" (Kevin McGeourgh) in Near Eastern Archaeology. (2006)
  • "However, these news films [The Mummy (1999), The Mummy Returns (2001), and The Scorpion King (2002)] are clearly situated within the genre of action-adventure as opposed to horror." (p.179)

That being said. Perhaps the issue is more so that "action adventure film" links to the hybird genre section of "action film". I can try to perhaps expand on that. That said, it would still be useful to try and clear out the genre situation here as we have several categories that have no mention within the article itself. Perhaps an amendment to Action-adventure film re-directing to Action-adventure (disambiguation). If we could turn this page into a Wikipedia:Set index articles, this might alleviate some problems. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Retrospective Reception

Apologies for later sub-headings, but I'm having a few issues with the latter reception section. While I somewhat expect later day reception to be generally more positive, the current phrasing of it does not seem to really reflect a "review". WP:VOICE suggests to avoid stating opinions as facts. I've tried to apply that in an edit like this.

Just it has some issues it should probably expand on like

• described as a "pivotal blockbuster of the nineties" and the "beginning of the end of action-adventure films", but I'm not sure how accurate that is with Tasker's source above stating that "associated with a comic - even camp tone that informed later examples of recycled adventure such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Mummy, and Pirates of the Caribbean" (p. 34). The Pirates of the Carribbean films are among the highest-grossing films from the next decade. As she does not go into a lot of depth beyond this single sentence in her review, I think we may be applying WP:UNDUE to this one sentence that is not really expanded upon.
• While I admire how concise it is, the statements we pull could probably be expanded upon to clarify what they mean. Rotten Tomatoes calling it the ""Indiana Jones for a new generation." is vague. Does it surpass it? equal it? as some critics have previously called it variously inferior or derivative of it, there is not a lot of meat to chew on with this phrase. Similarly, "reviewers felt Fraser's portrayal of Rick set a new mold for action heroes that more films would follow in the years after,"

Both statements and other seem at odds with each other as its apparently the last film of its kind, but also set a new standard in terms of action heroes. Even if we could just list examples if this is the case, its a lot easier to appreciate these kinds of sentences. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)