AICN claims to have info on "Forbidden Planet" - possible SPOILERS
Jan
"Forbidden Planet", that it'll be less of a remake and more of a continuation:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38991
Harry also says that JMS has just "completed his rewrite for THOR." I'd be
sorry for that to be true.
Jan
--
I try never to get involved in my own life. Too much trouble.
Amy Guskin
<geurn...@drn.newsguy.com>):
> Ain't It Cool News is claiming to have details about how JMS will approach
> "Forbidden Planet", that it'll be less of a remake and more of a
> continuation:
> http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38991
>
> Harry also says that JMS has just "completed his rewrite for THOR." I'd be
> sorry for that to be true. <<
Why sorry?
Amy
--
"This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time
- to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids;
to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American
Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one;
that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and
doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that
timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes We Can."
President-elect Barack Obama, November, 4, 2008
Jan
> >> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:33:30 -0500, thus spake Jan (in article
>
>
> > Ain't It Cool News is claiming to have details about how JMS will approach
> > "Forbidden Planet", that it'll be less of a remake and more of a
> > continuation:
> >http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38991
>
> > Harry also says that JMS has just "completed his rewrite for THOR." I'd be
> > sorry for that to be true. <<
>
> Why sorry?
>
I was assuming that Harry meant that JMS' run on the Thor comic was
ending. Apparently there's a movie, too but if we've heard that JMS
is doing a rewrite on the script I've completely forgotten.
Jan
Paul Hahn
> On Nov 6, 9:49 am, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:33:30 -0500, thus spake Jan (in article
>> <geurna01...@drn.newsguy.com>):
>>> sorry for that to be true. <<
>>
>> Why sorry?
>
> I was assuming that Harry meant that JMS' run on the Thor comic was
> ending. Apparently there's a movie, too but if we've heard that JMS
> is doing a rewrite on the script I've completely forgotten.
Harry is first and foremost a movie geek. I'm sure the movie script is
what he was referring to.
--
--pH <many...@wustl.edu> http://library.wustl.edu/~manynote
We need a voting system that avoids vote-splitting, reduces the
incentive to compromise, and encourages the growth of third parties!
See http://toykeeper.net/soapbox/reform/voting
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> Harry also says that JMS has just "completed his rewrite for THOR." I'd be
> sorry for that to be true.
I thought JMS was just doing the comics for Thor, sounds like they gave
him the film script.
Andrew Swallow
jms...@aol.com
> Ain't It Cool News is claiming to have details about how JMS will approach
> "Forbidden Planet", that it'll be less of a remake and more of a continuation:http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38991
>
>
That report is totally incorrect. It's not going to be retro, and
it's not going to be a continuation. When Altair 4 blows up, it blows
up. I have, however, found a way to honro the original movie without
in any way besmirching it in order to do this iteration. Once folks
find out what we're actually going to do, I think they'll be most
pleased. Forbidden Planet remains one of my favorite films of all
time, and I wouldn't even think about doing this project if I didn't
think there was a way to do it that would not in any way diminish the
original...which is why this is the the first development in years to
actually get to the script stage. Everybody involved is very excited
by the approach.
jms
Craig
Thanks for the update Joe. Can you tell us if it is in fact a re-make?
Hearing you are writting it made my day. It being one of my favorite movies
of all time, I was concerned about the remake (and the remake itis thst
goes on in Hollwood in general). But knew you would treat it right.
Jan
jms...@aol.com says...
>
>
>That report is totally incorrect. It's not going to be retro, and
>it's not going to be a continuation. When Altair 4 blows up, it blows
>up. I have, however, found a way to honro the original movie without
>in any way besmirching it in order to do this iteration. Once folks
>find out what we're actually going to do, I think they'll be most
>pleased. Forbidden Planet remains one of my favorite films of all
>time, and I wouldn't even think about doing this project if I didn't
>think there was a way to do it that would not in any way diminish the
>original...which is why this is the the first development in years to
>actually get to the script stage. Everybody involved is very excited
>by the approach.
>
>jms
>
Thanks for the update JMS. It's so cool to be able to ask the one who actually
knows when rumors start making the rounds.
Thanks,
Captain Infinity
Jere Lull
> On Nov 6, 5:33 am, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Ain't It Cool News is claiming to have details about how JMS will
>> approach "Forbidden Planet", that it'll be less of a remake and more of
>> a continuation: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38991
>> --
>
> That report is totally incorrect. It's not going to be retro, and it's
> not going to be a continuation. When Altair 4 blows up, it blows up.
> I have, however, found a way to honor the original movie without in any
> way besmirching it in order to do this iteration. Once folks find out
> what we're actually going to do, I think they'll be most pleased.
> Forbidden Planet remains one of my favorite films of all time, and I
> wouldn't even think about doing this project if I didn't think there
> was a way to do it that would not in any way diminish the
> original...which is why this is the the first development in years to
> actually get to the script stage. Everybody involved is very excited
> by the approach.
OMG! I still remember the nightmares I had for months after I watched
that as a kid.
It's on my top-10 SF movies.... BUT I can't guarantee that I've been
able to watch it all the way through since that first time about
'62-'64. Yeah, call me a scaredy cat. I won't disagree.
Looks like I'll have a movie to go to in 2010 ;-)
Thanks.
--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/
wrrlykam
Thanks Joe. I think you can add me to that list people who are
excited.
So long to wait . . "Oh, murder! "
Duggy
On AICN? You pretty much get used to that.
> It's not going to be retro,
Good, because retro is, like, so 90s.
> and it's not going to be a continuation.
OK.
> When Altair 4 blows up, it blows up.
Oh, man. How about some spoiler warning next time.
> I have, however, found a way to honro the original movie without
> in any way besmirching it in order to do this iteration. Once folks
> find out what we're actually going to do, I think they'll be most
> pleased.
Good, because I'm sick of people writing these things and thinking
"When they see this they're going to be so annoyed."
> Forbidden Planet remains one of my favorite films of all
> time, and I wouldn't even think about doing this project if I didn't
> think there was a way to do it that would not in any way diminish the
> original...which is why this is the the first development in years to
> actually get to the script stage. Everybody involved is very excited
> by the approach.
Sounds good.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Thanks for the update Joe. Can you tell us if it is in fact a re-make?
> Hearing you are writting it made my day. It being one of my favorite movies
> of all time, I was concerned about the remake (and the remake itis thst
> goes on in Hollwood in general). But knew you would treat it right.
Remake, prequel, set on the opposite side of the planet during the
same period, a film made inuniverse after buying the rights from the
survivors... I don't think now is the best time for him to give us
that sort of detail.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Thanks for the update JMS. It's so cool to be able to ask the one who actually
> knows when rumors start making the rounds.
Yeah, we can have "I was there when the truth was putting on its
shoes" t-shirts made.
===
= DUG.
===
Amy Guskin
<5fda47b5-55d3-4e32...@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 7, 6:31 am, "jmsa...@aol.com" <jmsa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> When Altair 4 blows up, it blows up.
>
> Oh, man. How about some spoiler warning next time. <<
It's a 52-year old film; I'd have to opine that the statute of limitations on
putting spoiler space in for this one has expired.
mpvork...@hotmail.com
> >>On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 23:51:28 -0500, thus spake Duggy (in article
>
>
> It's a 52-year old film; I'd have to opine that the statute of limitations on
> putting spoiler space in for this one has expired.
Second that.
I sent Harry Knowles an email with Joe's... what would you call it?
Refutation? of Harry's post, and haven't heard diddly. And, to make
matters worse, or at least more annoying, Robert Greenberger posted
the same bogus info on ComixMix, and I had to send him the same
message. Hopefully he's got it by now.
This is aggravating. To use one of Joe's phrases, it's like trying to
nail Jello to the wall. You think people would just go to the source
for things like this.But if they did, Joe'd never get a damn thing
done.
Mike
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>>>On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 23:51:28 -0500, thus spake Duggy (in article
><5fda47b5-55d3-4e32...@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Nov 7, 6:31 am, "jmsa...@aol.com" <jmsa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> When Altair 4 blows up, it blows up.
>>
>> Oh, man. How about some spoiler warning next time. <<
>
>It's a 52-year old film; I'd have to opine that the statute of limitations on
>putting spoiler space in for this one has expired.
>
Never. My eye! My eyes!
<evil grin>
--
Wes Struebing
Jan. 20, 2009 - the end of an error
Hans Christian Vang
"Jan" <janmsc...@aol.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:geurn...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Ain't It Cool News is claiming to have details about how JMS will approach
> "Forbidden Planet", that it'll be less of a remake and more of a
> continuation:
> http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38991
>
> Harry also says that JMS has just "completed his rewrite for THOR." I'd
> be
> sorry for that to be true.
>
> Jan
That site claims an awful lot of things. I've never understood why anyone
respects that site enough to suck up to its owner so much as (some) film
companies do.
I cant even stand reading their articles - it's just so terribly done, it's
frightening. That's me, anyway.l
HC
Duggy
> > It's a 52-year old film; I'd have to opine that the statute of limitations on
> > putting spoiler space in for this one has expired.
> Second that.
Sometimes the joke gets funnier the more people fall for it.
> I sent Harry Knowles an email with Joe's... what would you call it?
> Refutation? of Harry's post, and haven't heard diddly. And, to make
> matters worse, or at least more annoying, Robert Greenberger posted
> the same bogus info on ComixMix, and I had to send him the same
> message. Hopefully he's got it by now.
But the article has been changed. Those "Harry notes" explaining he
was told the truth but the person writing the article made false
assumptions.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
wrote:
> That site claims an awful lot of things. I've never understood why anyone
> respects that site enough to suck up to its owner so much as (some) film
> companies do.
Because people remember the hits more than the misses with things like
that.
And it whether the gossip's true or not it's the fan-pulse that it
portrays.
AICN will be the first place that the companies will hear "I think the
plans to put Superman in a yellow tutu suck". When the film fails
because fans walked out saying "the yellow tutu sucked" the company
thinks "Hmm, they're all following Harry, let's get in good with him."
===
= DUG.
===
Hans Christian Vang
"Duggy" <P.Allan...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:86eef3aa-d321-4ff9...@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 8, 5:32 am, "Hans Christian Vang" <hcv...@vangcreative.dk>
wrote:
> That site claims an awful lot of things. I've never understood why anyone
> respects that site enough to suck up to its owner so much as (some) film
> companies do.
AICN will be the first place that the companies will hear "I think the
plans to put Superman in a yellow tutu suck". When the film fails
because fans walked out saying "the yellow tutu sucked" the company
thinks "Hmm, they're all following Harry, let's get in good with him."
===
= DUG.
===
Hm. Anyone say 'sheep'? ;-)
Bill
No surprise here about AICN being wrong. Please forgive my atrocious
memory, but wasn't there either a movie maker or comic creator
(writer, I think) who said outright that he refuses to read or deal
with AICN in any fashion because they are so inaccurate on such a
regular basis?
Bill
Amy Guskin
<42b17592-79f0-4485...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 8, 1:41 am, mpvorkosi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> It's a 52-year old film; I'd have to opine that the statute of limitations
>>> on
>>> putting spoiler space in for this one has expired.
>> Second that.
>
> Sometimes the joke gets funnier the more people fall for it. <<
We had a conversation here awhile back about something like this. The
conclusion that some of us drew was that if more than a few people don't
understand what you meant -- a joke, an explanation, etc. -- then maybe you
have to consider that the fault is with your expression rather than their
understanding of what you said. I'm just sayin'... :-)
David Williams
"Amy Guskin" <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C53BA4BD...@news.verizon.net...
> We had a conversation here awhile back about something like this. The
> conclusion that some of us drew was that if more than a
> few people don't
> understand what you meant -- a joke, an explanation, etc. -- then
> maybe you have to consider that the fault is with your expression
> rather than their understanding of what you said. I'm just sayin'... :-)
Are you joking?
Duggy
wrote:
> Hm. Anyone say 'sheep'? ;-)
Lots of people. It isn't a difficult word.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> >> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 08:38:41 -0500, thus spake Duggy (in article
>
>
> > On Nov 8, 1:41 am, mpvorkosi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> It's a 52-year old film; I'd have to opine that the statute of limitations
> >>> on
> >>> putting spoiler space in for this one has expired.
> >> Second that.
> > Sometimes the joke gets funnier the more people fall for it. <<
> We had a conversation here awhile back about something like this. The
> conclusion that some of us drew was that if more than a few people don't
> understand what you meant -- a joke, an explanation, etc. -- then maybe you
> have to consider that the fault is with your expression rather than their
> understanding of what you said. I'm just sayin'... :-)
I'm fine with people misunderstanding. It honestly makes it funnier.
That after a number of threads and links that talk about the
destruction of Altair I'd suddenly be shocked by the spoiler?
Catching people out is the point.
===
= DUG.
===
Amy Guskin
<gf5sqh$so2$1...@registered.motzarella.org>):
<whap!> ;-)
Matt Ion
> That site claims an awful lot of things. I've never understood why
> anyone respects that site enough to suck up to its owner so much as
> (some) film companies do.
>
> I cant even stand reading their articles - it's just so terribly done,
> it's frightening. That's me, anyway.l
In other words, if "Ain't It Cool News" was a question, the answer would
be, "No"?
Amy Guskin
<gf8vhp$jaf$1...@registered.motzarella.org>):
That's pretty good!
Jon Schild
The only time I have ever gone to that site to read anything was when
they managed to get copies "The Fall of Centauri Prime", "The Wheel Of
Fire", "Objects In Motion", "Objects at Rest", and "Sleeping in Light"
long before they aired. Rather than take the opportunity to publish
detailed descriptions of spoilage, they gave glowing and rather touching
reviews of the lot, especially "Sleeping in Light." It seems to have
been dated Aug 24, 1998. Amy or Jan can probably provide a link to the
exact post. It is well worth reading, if you haven't already.
--
Wanted dead and/or alive: Shroedinger's cat.
Amy Guskin
<gf9ijb$81d$1...@news.xmission.com>):
This is probably what you mean:
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=1954
Jon Schild
Amy Guskin wrote:
>>>On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:05:33 -0500, thus spake Jon Schild (in article
>
> <gf9ijb$81d$1...@news.xmission.com>):
>
>
>>Matt Ion wrote:
>>
>>>Hans Christian Vang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>That site claims an awful lot of things. I've never understood why
>>>>anyone respects that site enough to suck up to its owner so much as
>>>>(some) film companies do.
>>>>
>>>>I cant even stand reading their articles - it's just so terribly done,
>>>>it's frightening. That's me, anyway.l
>>>
>>>In other words, if "Ain't It Cool News" was a question, the answer would
>>>be, "No"?
>>>
>>
>>The only time I have ever gone to that site to read anything was when
>>they managed to get copies "The Fall of Centauri Prime", "The Wheel Of
>>Fire", "Objects In Motion", "Objects at Rest", and "Sleeping in Light"
>>long before they aired. Rather than take the opportunity to publish
>>detailed descriptions of spoilage, they gave glowing and rather touching
>>reviews of the lot, especially "Sleeping in Light." It seems to have
>>been dated Aug 24, 1998. Amy or Jan can probably provide a link to the
>>exact post. It is well worth reading, if you haven't already. <<
>
>
> This is probably what you mean:
>
> http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=1954
>
> Amy
Yes, that's the one.
Dan Dassow
> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:05:33 -0500, thus spake Jon Schild (in article
>
>
> >> In other words, if "Ain't It Cool News" was a question, the answer would
> >> be, "No"?
Since this is the subjunctive mood, shouldn't that have read:
In other words, if "Ain't It Cool News" WERE a question, the answer
would
be, "No"?
>
> This is probably what you mean:
>
> http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=1954
Scary! That is the year that JMS and I were born.
Dan Dassow
Matt Ion
>
>
> Amy Guskin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:05:33 -0500, thus spake Jon Schild (in article
>>
>> <gf9ijb$81d$1...@news.xmission.com>):
>>
>>
>>> Matt Ion wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hans Christian Vang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That site claims an awful lot of things. I've never understood why
>>>>> anyone respects that site enough to suck up to its owner so much as
>>>>> (some) film companies do.
>>>>>
>>>>> I cant even stand reading their articles - it's just so terribly
>>>>> done, it's frightening. That's me, anyway.l
>>>>
>>>> In other words, if "Ain't It Cool News" was a question, the answer
>>>> would be, "No"?
Amy? Is that you?
Matt Ion
Whoopsie, that was supposed to be a reply to Dan... stupid twitchy
clicky-finger.
Joseph DeMartino
> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 04:40:06 -0500, thus spake Matt Ion (in article
> > In other words, if "Ain't It Cool News" was a question, the answer would
> > be, "No"? <<
>
> That's pretty good!
I stopped reading "Ain't It Counterfeit News" years ago. The signal-
to-noise ratio was way too low, and most pieces either seemed to be
extended exercises in ass-kissing (of people Harry likes, e.g.,
Tarantino, Peter Jackson and Kevin Smith) or senseless ad hominem
attacks (on people Harry doesn't like.) In neither case does a)
factual accuracy or b) artistic merit seem to have much to do with
what ends up on the site. And don't even get me started on the
"discussion" threads, which are almost a parody of the internet at its
worst.
Regards,
Joe
mpvork...@hotmail.com
CHUD is worse. Devin Feraci's review of Changeling is stupidly biased.
It's like the difference between ABC, which is slightly right-leaning,
and Fox, which has listed so far to starboard that it's shipping
water.
Find me someplace better and more readable, and I'll happily go there.
All Harry and Drew do these days is surf other sites and report the
news from there, and get little bits from stringers.
I stay away from the talkbacks.
Mike