Talk:The Mummy Returns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ancient Egypt Portal This article is part of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

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.

Contents 1 Imhotep Speaking English 2 Plot Summary reconstruction 3 Is it just me, or... 4 A link resource 5 Retcon of Imohtep's Origin

[edit] Imhotep Speaking English

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

[edit] Plot Summary reconstruction

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

[edit] A link resource

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

[edit] Retcon of Imohtep's Origin

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)

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)