Talk:The Mummy Returns

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is it just me, or... 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Retcon of Imohtep's Origin 

message: 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)
replies: text: If people do not stop changing this, I will request that this page be protected.  Emperor001 (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scarabs/Scorpions

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusing editions release 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Here there be vandals 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Novel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anachronisms 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020602133316/http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATimes-Movies-X!ArticleDetail-31481,00.html?search_area=Movies&channel=Movies to http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATimes-Movies-X!ArticleDetail-31481,00.html?search_area=Movies&channel=Movies
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Planning to expand the page.