LoEG - Question

[Lilith]

Guess this is as good a place to ask this question.

I just stumbled across LoEG in TV Guide where it appears to have taken
the same tone in its opinion of the movie vs. the graphic novel that
is prevalent here. Primarily it says it lacks a cohesive plot.

Not having read the comic can someone tell me if the plot was
seriously different from the GN or if the problem is in the
presentation of it?

--
Lilith

[Tim Turnip]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:23:59 -0500, Lilith <lili...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Both. The movie made a hash of even the book's broadest outlines,
rewriting the entire plot almost completely as well as virtually every
character. (Some like Dorian Gray and Tom Sawyer were totally new,
while the existing ones were upgraded to better suit a mainstream
blockbuster: Mina Murray/Harker now has vampire powers; Quatermain is
hale and strapping instead of a dessicated opium addict, etc.)

However, the presentation is probably the film's worst fault, as it
(like the bomb Wild Wild West and the recent Sherlock Holmes movies)
uses the Victorian millieu as an an excuse to create an airless,
artificial alternate 19th century that is might as well just be the
modern world with steampunk tech and fashions. The original LoEG's
world is much more interesting and complex than that, and so are its
characters.

[Brenda Clough]

Moore has said that he wrote LoEG specifically to be unfilmable -- read
the second volume and you will agree he succeeded. So it is not
surprising that Hollywood had to massively modify it to get it onto the
screen. (The real mystery is why they wanted to try, but there you are.)
The comics are superb, and can be endlessly reread with profit. A third
series is very very slowly coming out; the second issue appeared this
summer and we may confidently look for the concluding third issue before
the end of the decade.

Brenda


--
My latest novel SPEAK TO OUR DESIRES is available exclusively from Book
View Cafe.
http://www.bookviewcafe.com/index.php/Brenda-Clough/Novels/Speak-to-Our-Desires-Chapter-01

[Kenneth M. Lin]

The movie had Tom Sawyer in it in order to attract American audience. It's
that different.

"Lilith" wrote in message
news:5s7i77l5rpub4ec11...@4ax.com...

[grinningdemon]

Don't forget the Black Dossier GN that came between the 2nd and 3rd
series...and that 3rd series really isn't a series at all...it's a
bunch of one shots that were originally supposed to be annual (I
believe) but Moore has to be contrary.

[Lilith]

I can't see where that would make much difference. I don't recall
anything leading up to the movie that indicated that the great special
agent Tom Sawyer was in the movie nor would it have made a lot of
difference to me one way or the other.

--
Lilith

[grinningdemon]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:47:20 -0500, Lilith <lili...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I can't see where that would make much difference. I don't recall
>anything leading up to the movie that indicated that the great special
>agent Tom Sawyer was in the movie nor would it have made a lot of
>difference to me one way or the other.

No one said it was a GOOD idea...but that was supposedly the reasoning
behind it...I still can't believe James Robinson wrote that stinker of
a script.

[IsThisScottie]

+1 insightful

I wonder why that is so. What is it about the Victorian setting that
repels audiences?

[grinningdemon]

The better question is what is it about the Victorian setting that
Hollywood THINKS repels audiences?

That said, as much as I love LoEG, Moore's right that a film just
couldn't do it justice no matter how hard they tried...the book is all
about the obscure literary references and, beyond that, it's just
really out there...a film just couldn't capture that...at least not
one made to appeal to the masses.

[Duggy]

Majorly different plot.

And the presentation sucked too.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Sep 21, 9:58 am, Tim Turnip <timtur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> However, the presentation is probably the film's worst fault, as it
> (like the bomb Wild Wild West and the recent Sherlock Holmes movies)
> uses the Victorian millieu as an an excuse to create an airless,
> artificial alternate 19th century that is might as well just be the
> modern world with steampunk tech and fashions.

Steampunk tech? Nah. The car and the tank were later technology not
steampunked up at all.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Sep 21, 3:20 pm, IsThisScottie <thisissco...@trip.com> wrote:
> I wonder why that is so.  What is it about the Victorian setting that
> repels audiences?

I think the problem is Hollywood can't do Steampunk.

It's like Tim Burton's Batman films (for better or worse) were Tim
Burton. The sequels and Lost in Space were someone trying to do Tim
Burton.

Hollywood Steampunk always looks like someone trying to do Steampunk
not someone actually doing it.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>On Sep 21, 3:20�pm, IsThisScottie <thisissco...@trip.com> wrote:
>> I wonder why that is so. �What is it about the Victorian setting that
>> repels audiences?
>
>I think the problem is Hollywood can't do Steampunk.
>
>It's like Tim Burton's Batman films (for better or worse) were Tim
>Burton. The sequels and Lost in Space were someone trying to do Tim
>Burton.

Yeah, I don't think Batman & Robin was Schumacker's attempt to do Tim
Burton...hell, it was more like the 60s TV show...except worse.

I get your point though.

[IsThisScottie]

Action? I was all for Iron Man as Sherlock Holmes in Victorian England
until I saw the trailer... ...it suggested mindless action in lieu of any
actual sleuthing.

> That said, as much as I love LoEG, Moore's right that a film just
> couldn't do it justice no matter how hard they tried...the book is all
> about the obscure literary references and, beyond that, it's just
> really out there...a film just couldn't capture that...at least not
> one made to appeal to the masses.

Has any Hollywood movie managed to please both the fanbase and the masses
concurrently?

[Duggy]

On Sep 21, 6:10 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>

> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >On Sep 21, 3:20 pm, IsThisScottie <thisissco...@trip.com> wrote:
> >> I wonder why that is so. What is it about the Victorian setting that
> >> repels audiences?
>
> >I think the problem is Hollywood can't do Steampunk.
>
> >It's like Tim Burton's Batman films (for better or worse) were Tim
> >Burton.  The sequels and Lost in Space were someone trying to do Tim
> >Burton.

> Yeah, I don't think Batman & Robin was Schumacker's attempt to do Tim
> Burton...hell, it was more like the 60s TV show...except worse.

I think he was doing a little of both. He was pretty much forced to
go with Burton's style... but as I say it wasn't natural, it was
obvious someone mimicking a style.

> I get your point though.

Cool.

===
= DUG.
===

[IsThisScottie]

grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:50:52 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 21, 3:20 pm, IsThisScottie <thisissco...@trip.com> wrote:
>>> I wonder why that is so. What is it about the Victorian setting that
>>> repels audiences?
>>
>> I think the problem is Hollywood can't do Steampunk.
>>
>> It's like Tim Burton's Batman films (for better or worse) were Tim
>> Burton. The sequels and Lost in Space were someone trying to do Tim
>> Burton.
>
> Yeah, I don't think Batman & Robin was Schumacker's attempt to do Tim
> Burton...hell, it was more like the 60s TV show...except worse.

Actually I think Spongebob Squarepants' Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy paid
better homage to the Adam West series.

[IsThisScottie]

Just curious, what then would an actual steampunk movie be, in your
opinion?

> === DUG.
> ==

[Duggy]

On Sep 21, 6:53 pm, IsThisScottie <thisissco...@trip.com> wrote:

> grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 05:20:50 +0000 (UTC), IsThisScottie

> > <thisissco...@trip.com> wrote:
>
> >> Tim Turnip <timtur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:23:59 -0500, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com>

Did well enough to get a sequel.

> > That said, as much as I love LoEG, Moore's right that a film just
> > couldn't do it justice no matter how hard they tried...the book is all
> > about the obscure literary references and, beyond that, it's just
> > really out there...a film just couldn't capture that...at least not
> > one made to appeal to the masses.
> Has any Hollywood movie managed to please both the fanbase and the masses
> concurrently?

Iron Man 1, X-Men 1, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Spider-man 1,
Hellboy 1...

There will always be part of the fanbase and the masses that don't
like something but I think all of those were mostly successful.

===
= DUG.
====

[grinningdemon]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:53:38 +0000 (UTC), IsThisScottie

You mentioned Iron Man...I thought it did pretty well by both...and
Captain America, for that matter...haven't seen Thor yet so I couldn't
say.

But this is different than simply choosing to try and please the
masses over fans...I just don't think the depth of the material is
possible to boil down to a 2 hour movie.

[grinningdemon]

I don't know...the rest of your examples I'll grant you but the X-Men
movies seemed to put off a significant number of fans...though
probably less so with the 2nd movie than the 1st (though that probably
has more to do with it being a better movie than being truer to the
material).

[Duggy]

On Sep 21, 7:23 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 02:09:27 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

> >> Has any Hollywood movie managed to please both the fanbase and the masses
> >> concurrently?
> >Iron Man 1, X-Men 1, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Spider-man 1,
> >Hellboy 1...

> >There will always be part of the fanbase and the masses that don't
> >like something but I think all of those were mostly successful.

> I don't know...the rest of your examples I'll grant you

OK.

> but the X-Men
> movies seemed to put off a significant number of fans...though
> probably less so with the 2nd movie than the 1st (though that probably
> has more to do with it being a better movie than being truer to the
> material).

There's always some grumbling, obviously, but I didn't notice too much
with X-Men 1. If there was and I missed it I withdraw the example.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Sep 21, 7:06 pm, IsThisScottie <thisissco...@trip.com> wrote:

The City of Lost Children.
Dark Portals: The Chronicles of Vidocq.

But French films aren't Hollywood.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

Seemed like there was...at least compared to the others.

[Duggy]

Others I listed or other X-Men?

===
= DUG.
===

[Brenda Clough]

Yes, Tom Sawyer was totally wasted and supplied nothing unique or
individual at all. He could have been anybody. Although it is hard to
imagine how poling a raft or knowing how to aim a slingshot really would
help you in the movie.

[Brenda Clough]

I will say that I did like Robert Downey as Holmes. And the movie did
capture Holmes' borderline obsessive-compulsive personality. The
action-adventure was simply movie SOP, nothing to be done about it.

[grinningdemon]

Others you listed.

[Duggy]

On Sep 22, 10:33 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
wrote:

> Others you listed.

I know there was some about the web slingers for Spider-man.

Enough for X-Men (uniforms, I recall, maybe a little line-up) to say
it put off a significant number of fans?

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

Yeah, the organic web shooters put off some fans (myself included) but
I'd still say Spiderman 1 went over pretty well with the majority of
fans...and 2 was a better film (even though there was that sizable
plot hole where they never explained why his powers were cutting out
on him and then he suddenly got better)...3, on the other hand, was
terrible (not as bad as X-Men 3 but close).

>Enough for X-Men (uniforms, I recall, maybe a little line-up) to say
>it put off a significant number of fans?

Uniforms were an issue but I think casting on certain characters (some
were spot-on, others sucked ass), some really cheesy dialogue, line-up
issues, a weak plot, basically turning Rogue into Kitty Pryde (as far
as her role on the team), and the ridiculously inflated role of
Wolverine put off quite a few fans...I don't think it was any one
thing so much as a lot of smaller issues that added up and bugged
different people to different degrees...and it seemed like those
issues only intensified with each sequel (especially the God-awful 3rd
film)...my impression, anyway...that said, since it was the first of
the new crop of big comic book blockbusters, I suppose fans might have
been a little more forgiving for lack of quality films to compare it
to...and I'll admit I'm not exactly unbiased on this as I'm a huge
X-fan and pretty much hated the movies...still, I seem to recall a
fair amount of bitching and moaning that wasn't coming from me.

[Duggy]

On Sep 22, 4:21 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:29:32 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Agreed.

> and 2 was a better film (even though there was that sizable
> plot hole where they never explained why his powers were cutting out
> on him and then he suddenly got better)...

Honestly can't remember 2 that well at all. I would say that I guess
that means I liked it less, but I can't say for sure.

> 3, on the other hand, was terrible

It needed to be about Sandman and the Black Costume (and maybe Green
Goblin 2). Have Peter reject the Black Costume and end with Topher
being engulfed by it.

> (not as bad as X-Men 3 but close).

True.

> Uniforms were an issue

Personally put me off a little.

> but I think casting on certain characters (some
> were spot-on, others sucked ass),

Fair enough. I recall when Hugh was announced the Australian
Government Broadcast were playing him sing "Oh What A Beautiful
Morning" between shows... and I thought... "really? Him?"

> some really cheesy dialogue, line-up
> issues, a weak plot, basically turning Rogue into Kitty Pryde (as far
> as her role on the team), and the ridiculously inflated role of
> Wolverine put off quite a few fans...I don't think it was any one
> thing so much as a lot of smaller issues that added up and bugged
> different people to different degrees...and it seemed like those
> issues only intensified with each sequel (especially the God-awful 3rd
> film)...my impression, anyway...that said, since it was the first of
> the new crop of big comic book blockbusters, I suppose fans might have
> been a little more forgiving for lack of quality films to compare it
> to...and I'll admit I'm not exactly unbiased on this as I'm a huge
> X-fan and pretty much hated the movies...still, I seem to recall a
> fair amount of bitching and moaning that wasn't coming from me.

Fair enough. I'll remove that one under advisement.

I still think more examples were enough to put the idea that the fan
base and the masses can't agree (I won't say it will work for every
character - but it can happen).

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

I thought it was the strongest of the 3...likewise, the 2nd X-Men film
was the strongest of the 3.

>> 3, on the other hand, was terrible
>
>It needed to be about Sandman and the Black Costume (and maybe Green
>Goblin 2). Have Peter reject the Black Costume and end with Topher
>being engulfed by it.

See, I think you could have lifted Sandman completely out of the movie
and it would have been all the better for it...shoehorning him in to
Uncle Ben's murder was lame as hell...throwing Gwen Stacy in as an
afterthought was pointless and unnecessary...and don't even get me
started on that dancing scene.

I say start it off with him getting the black costume...the first half
of the movie can be about him being taken over and ultimately
rejecting the costume all while dealing with Goblin Jr...Topher gets
taken over immediately following the rejection, Harry's off recovering
from his injuries...then maybe skip ahead a few weeks or months and
Venom starts stalking him (maybe Peter even thinks it's Harry at
first), then the obligatory MJ kidnapping and big fight...about the
only thing I did like in the movie was when he and Harry teamed up in
the end before Harry dies...you could split all that up into 2 films
but I think it makes a stronger story and character arc all in one and
I think a tight script could bring it all in a little over 2
hours...though it's not like there isn't a precedent for big
action/adventure flicks to go a little longer.

>> (not as bad as X-Men 3 but close).
>
>True.
>
>> Uniforms were an issue
>
>Personally put me off a little.

Me too...not as much the look as the obvious fact that the actors
could barely move in them which made the action kind of weak...I even
remember them saying something about that in interviews.

>> but I think casting on certain characters (some
>> were spot-on, others sucked ass),
>
>Fair enough. I recall when Hugh was announced the Australian
>Government Broadcast were playing him sing "Oh What A Beautiful
>Morning" between shows... and I thought... "really? Him?"

I didn't mind him for Wolverine so much (until Marvel started trying
to make the comic version look like Jackman)...it was some of the
others that got to me...Halle Berry (gorgeous as she is) is a terrible
choice for Storm...and, when you're casting Scott and Jean, you really
need to cast them as a couple rather than individually...either Jean
needed to be younger or Scott needed to be older because they just
didn't look believable together or have much chemistry at all...it
just wasn't a good mix...Xavier and Magneto were the only two they
really got right.

>> some really cheesy dialogue, line-up
>> issues, a weak plot, basically turning Rogue into Kitty Pryde (as far
>> as her role on the team), and the ridiculously inflated role of
>> Wolverine put off quite a few fans...I don't think it was any one
>> thing so much as a lot of smaller issues that added up and bugged
>> different people to different degrees...and it seemed like those
>> issues only intensified with each sequel (especially the God-awful 3rd
>> film)...my impression, anyway...that said, since it was the first of
>> the new crop of big comic book blockbusters, I suppose fans might have
>> been a little more forgiving for lack of quality films to compare it
>> to...and I'll admit I'm not exactly unbiased on this as I'm a huge
>> X-fan and pretty much hated the movies...still, I seem to recall a
>> fair amount of bitching and moaning that wasn't coming from me.
>
>Fair enough. I'll remove that one under advisement.
>
>I still think more examples were enough to put the idea that the fan
>base and the masses can't agree (I won't say it will work for every
>character - but it can happen).

It can, certainly...just seems like a lot of the time Hollywood
doesn't really care about the fan base at all...of course, sometimes
it seems like DC and Marvel don't either so I guess it's neither here
nor there.

As far as appealing to both the masses and the fan base, I'd say the
recent Marvel-produced films, the Nolan Batman films, and the original
Superman are probably as good as it gets...so far, anyway.

[Duggy]

On Sep 22, 6:12 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >It needed to be about Sandman and the Black Costume (and maybe Green
> >Goblin 2).  Have Peter reject the Black Costume and end with Topher
> >being engulfed by it.

> See, I think you could have lifted Sandman completely out of the movie
> and it would have been all the better for it...

True, I was more working with what was there.

> shoehorning him in to
> Uncle Ben's murder was lame as hell...throwing Gwen Stacy in as an
> afterthought was pointless and unnecessary...and don't even get me
> started on that dancing scene.

I was avoiding mentioning that, too.

> I say start it off with him getting the black costume...the first half
> of the movie can be about him being taken over and ultimately
> rejecting the costume all while dealing with Goblin Jr...Topher gets
> taken over immediately following the rejection, Harry's off recovering
> from his injuries...then maybe skip ahead a few weeks or months and
> Venom starts stalking him (maybe Peter even thinks it's Harry at
> first), then the obligatory MJ kidnapping and big fight...about the
> only thing I did like in the movie was when he and Harry teamed up in
> the end before Harry dies...you could split all that up into 2 films
> but I think it makes a stronger story and character arc all in one and
> I think a tight script could bring it all in a little over 2
> hours...though it's not like there isn't a precedent for big
> action/adventure flicks to go a little longer.

I think it's too much in the one film.

Then again, I think that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight had too
much in them and they worked, so I could be wrong.

> >> Uniforms were an issue
> >Personally put me off a little.
> Me too...not as much the look as the obvious fact that the actors
> could barely move in them which made the action kind of weak...I even
> remember them saying something about that in interviews.

Agreed. People keep saying "spandex would look silly" (and leather
and rubber doesn't?) And I keep saying "Do athletes wear spandex or
do they think it looks silly? They need to be able to move."

> >Fair enough.  I recall when Hugh was announced the Australian
> >Government Broadcast were playing him sing "Oh What A Beautiful
> >Morning" between shows... and I thought... "really?  Him?"
> I didn't mind him for Wolverine so much

This was just during casting. It was a WTF moment.

> (until Marvel started trying
> to make the comic version look like Jackman)...it was some of the
> others that got to me...Halle Berry (gorgeous as she is) is a terrible
> choice for Storm...

True. But I think that Storm didn't work in the films. She didn't do
much and wasn't really needed. Any extra character could have been
there.

> >I still think more examples were enough to put the idea that the fan
> >base and the masses can't agree (I won't say it will work for every
> >character - but it can happen).

> It can, certainly...just seems like a lot of the time Hollywood
> doesn't really care about the fan base at all...of course, sometimes
> it seems like DC and Marvel don't either so I guess it's neither here
> nor there.

> As far as appealing to both the masses and the fan base, I'd say the
> recent Marvel-produced films, the Nolan Batman films, and the original
> Superman are probably as good as it gets...so far, anyway.

True.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:03:58 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>On Sep 22, 6:12�pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >It needed to be about Sandman and the Black Costume (and maybe Green
>> >Goblin 2). �Have Peter reject the Black Costume and end with Topher
>> >being engulfed by it.
>
>> See, I think you could have lifted Sandman completely out of the movie
>> and it would have been all the better for it...
>
>True, I was more working with what was there.

That doesn't leave much to start with.

>> shoehorning him in to
>> Uncle Ben's murder was lame as hell...throwing Gwen Stacy in as an
>> afterthought was pointless and unnecessary...and don't even get me
>> started on that dancing scene.
>
>I was avoiding mentioning that, too.

It's one of maybe a handfull of scenes I can think of in big
blockbusters like that that just seem like it was supposed to be in
some other movie all together...hell, it would have been a good
blooper reel for the DVD.

>> I say start it off with him getting the black costume...the first half
>> of the movie can be about him being taken over and ultimately
>> rejecting the costume all while dealing with Goblin Jr...Topher gets
>> taken over immediately following the rejection, Harry's off recovering
>> from his injuries...then maybe skip ahead a few weeks or months and
>> Venom starts stalking him (maybe Peter even thinks it's Harry at
>> first), then the obligatory MJ kidnapping and big fight...about the
>> only thing I did like in the movie was when he and Harry teamed up in
>> the end before Harry dies...you could split all that up into 2 films
>> but I think it makes a stronger story and character arc all in one and
>> I think a tight script could bring it all in a little over 2
>> hours...though it's not like there isn't a precedent for big
>> action/adventure flicks to go a little longer.
>
>I think it's too much in the one film.

It's pushing it, I agree...but I think ending with him overcoming the
costume and the creation of Venom would be too little for one film and
this is the next natural stopping point...plus, the comics had a major
advantage for this story that the movies could never
have...mystery...when Venom first started making his little cameos and
stalking Peter, the reader really had no idea what was going on and
then he just kind of burst onto the scene...it worked mainly because
it had been quite a while since the black costume saga ended and we
never actually saw Brock taken over by it...that wouldn't work in a
film...even if it were split in two.

And bringing Sandman back into it as filler wouldn't work for me
because I always thought he was a really cheesy villain...Spidey has
some cool bad guys and some really lame ones...and he definitely falls
on the lame side.

Kraven might have worked...he'd need some re-tooling for live action
but I like the idea of the hunter stalking Spiderman through NYC while
Spidey is busy dealing with other issues (like the black
costume)...maybe even have him hired by Harry to hunt Spidey to tie it
all together...that could have been an interesting way to go, but it
would have required another film to get to Venom and, by the 3rd film,
it was becoming increasingly obvious that the people involved in the
Spidey franchise (on both sides of the camera) were ready to walk.

>Then again, I think that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight had too
>much in them and they worked, so I could be wrong.

They did pack a lot in but I think it was generally handled very
well...surprisingly so.

>> >> Uniforms were an issue
>> >Personally put me off a little.
>> Me too...not as much the look as the obvious fact that the actors
>> could barely move in them which made the action kind of weak...I even
>> remember them saying something about that in interviews.
>
>Agreed. People keep saying "spandex would look silly" (and leather
>and rubber doesn't?) And I keep saying "Do athletes wear spandex or
>do they think it looks silly? They need to be able to move."

There's a middle ground...it is possible to make the costumes look
cool and still seem at least somewhat practical...once again, I refer
back to the Nolan Batman films...they did pretty well by Captain
America too (though I'm still not a fan of the Ultimate-style helmet).

>> >Fair enough. �I recall when Hugh was announced the Australian
>> >Government Broadcast were playing him sing "Oh What A Beautiful
>> >Morning" between shows... and I thought... "really? �Him?"
>> I didn't mind him for Wolverine so much
>
>This was just during casting. It was a WTF moment.
>
>> (until Marvel started trying
>> to make the comic version look like Jackman)...it was some of the
>> others that got to me...Halle Berry (gorgeous as she is) is a terrible
>> choice for Storm...
>
>True. But I think that Storm didn't work in the films. She didn't do
>much and wasn't really needed. Any extra character could have been
>there.

Bad writing was, of course, the biggest problems those films
had...though, with a team story, it's going to be hard to make EVERY
character pivotal to the story...especially since they couldn't really
build them up in seperate films before putting them all together in
one like with Avengers...with X-Men, Wolverine aside, it's really all
or nothing...that said, even if Storm had a more important role in the
film, it would have only made the miscasting even more noticable.

[Duggy]

On Sep 23, 9:02 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >True, I was more working with what was there.
> That doesn't leave much to start with.

Well, that's true.

> >I was avoiding mentioning that, too.
> It's one of maybe a handfull of scenes I can think of in big
> blockbusters like that that just seem like it was supposed to be in
> some other movie all together...hell, it would have been a good
> blooper reel for the DVD.

It did look that that.

> >I think it's too much in the one film.
> It's pushing it, I agree...but I think ending with him overcoming the
> costume and the creation of Venom would be too little for one film and
> this is the next natural stopping point...plus, the comics had a major
> advantage for this story that the movies could never
> have...mystery...when Venom first started making his little cameos and
> stalking Peter, the reader really had no idea what was going on and
> then he just kind of burst onto the scene...it worked mainly because
> it had been quite a while since the black costume saga ended and we
> never actually saw Brock taken over by it...that wouldn't work in a
> film...even if it were split in two.

Think about it... What about resolving the Green Goblin 2 story in 3
and doing black costume and setting up Venom?

> And bringing Sandman back into it as filler wouldn't work for me
> because I always thought he was a really cheesy villain...Spidey has
> some cool bad guys and some really lame ones...and he definitely falls
> on the lame side.

Agreed.

> Kraven might have worked...he'd need some re-tooling for live action
> but I like the idea of the hunter stalking Spiderman through NYC while
> Spidey is busy dealing with other issues (like the black
> costume)...

Sounds good.

> >Then again, I think that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight had too
> >much in them and they worked, so I could be wrong.
> They did pack a lot in but I think it was generally handled very
> well...surprisingly so.

Agreed. I did feel in both films that had too much and I'd got
restless... but most people didn't seem to care so it must have
worked.

> >Agreed.  People keep saying "spandex would look silly" (and leather
> >and rubber doesn't?)  And I keep saying "Do athletes wear spandex or
> >do they think it looks silly?  They need to be able to move."
> There's a middle ground...it is possible to make the costumes look
> cool and still seem at least somewhat practical...once again, I refer
> back to the Nolan Batman films...they did pretty well by Captain
> America too (though I'm still not a fan of the Ultimate-style helmet).

True.

> >> (until Marvel started trying
> >> to make the comic version look like Jackman)...it was some of the
> >> others that got to me...Halle Berry (gorgeous as she is) is a terrible
> >> choice for Storm...
> >True.  But I think that Storm didn't work in the films.  She didn't do
> >much and wasn't really needed.  Any extra character could have been
> >there.

> Bad writing was, of course, the biggest problems those films
> had...though, with a team story, it's going to be hard to make EVERY
> character pivotal to the story...especially since they couldn't really
> build them up in seperate films before putting them all together in
> one like with Avengers...with X-Men, Wolverine aside, it's really all
> or nothing...that said, even if Storm had a more important role in the
> film, it would have only made the miscasting even more noticable.

True. Although with 3 films they could have done one with some Storm
focus. Give her a story not just a hanging on character in a sub-plot
involving actors from Brosnan Bond films.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

>> >I think it's too much in the one film.
>> It's pushing it, I agree...but I think ending with him overcoming the
>> costume and the creation of Venom would be too little for one film and
>> this is the next natural stopping point...plus, the comics had a major
>> advantage for this story that the movies could never
>> have...mystery...when Venom first started making his little cameos and
>> stalking Peter, the reader really had no idea what was going on and
>> then he just kind of burst onto the scene...it worked mainly because
>> it had been quite a while since the black costume saga ended and we
>> never actually saw Brock taken over by it...that wouldn't work in a
>> film...even if it were split in two.
>
>Think about it... What about resolving the Green Goblin 2 story in 3
>and doing black costume and setting up Venom?

I just don't think Goblin Jr. is strong enough to be the primary
villain...plus, it would seem redundant after the original...it's the
kind of thing that works in long-term comic storylines that just falls
flat in an abbreviated adaptation...and there's always that tendency
to want to go bigger with each sequel so another Goblin isn't really
going to cut it as anything but a subplot.

>> And bringing Sandman back into it as filler wouldn't work for me
>> because I always thought he was a really cheesy villain...Spidey has
>> some cool bad guys and some really lame ones...and he definitely falls
>> on the lame side.
>
>Agreed.

I do think Spidey has some lame villains that COULD be cool if someone
took the right take on them (Vulture, for instance)...but I really
don't think Sandman is one of those...he has kind of cool powers (at
least when elevated to the level they were in the film...which is much
more than typically done in the comics) but it makes him a bad villain
because the hero really has no way to beat him...hell, all that
destruction and all that came of it was a little heart ot heart and
Sandman gets to go home...horrible.

>> Kraven might have worked...he'd need some re-tooling for live action
>> but I like the idea of the hunter stalking Spiderman through NYC while
>> Spidey is busy dealing with other issues (like the black
>> costume)...
>
>Sounds good.

They would have had to give him some kind of real powers to make him a
real believable physical threat but it is an interesting character and
scenario.

>> >Then again, I think that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight had too
>> >much in them and they worked, so I could be wrong.
>> They did pack a lot in but I think it was generally handled very
>> well...surprisingly so.
>
>Agreed. I did feel in both films that had too much and I'd got
>restless... but most people didn't seem to care so it must have
>worked.

I got a little annoyed during the early parts of Batman Begins because
of the inserted childhood sweetheart and Bruce being willing to use a
gun but it wasn't because I thought there was too much story...if
anything, it made me want more...I would LOVE to see a
Smallville-esque Batman show done right...there was talk of one at one
point but I don't see it happening anytime soon...I think I would set
it after he returns to Gotham but before he actually becomes Batman
and each episode would have Highlander-style flashbacks of his travels
and training...most versions of the origin (notably Year One) have a
decent window of time there that would work...and, as long as the show
doesn't drag on for 10 years like Smallville did, there's no reason
why they couldn't get 4-5 seasons in and have them set over just a
year or two in his life.

>> >Agreed. �People keep saying "spandex would look silly" (and leather
>> >and rubber doesn't?) �And I keep saying "Do athletes wear spandex or
>> >do they think it looks silly? �They need to be able to move."
>> There's a middle ground...it is possible to make the costumes look
>> cool and still seem at least somewhat practical...once again, I refer
>> back to the Nolan Batman films...they did pretty well by Captain
>> America too (though I'm still not a fan of the Ultimate-style helmet).
>
>True.

I thought Smallville's Green Arrow costume wasn't too bad either if
you trade the glasses/goggles for an actual mask.

>> >> (until Marvel started trying
>> >> to make the comic version look like Jackman)...it was some of the
>> >> others that got to me...Halle Berry (gorgeous as she is) is a terrible
>> >> choice for Storm...
>> >True. �But I think that Storm didn't work in the films. �She didn't do
>> >much and wasn't really needed. �Any extra character could have been
>> >there.
>
>> Bad writing was, of course, the biggest problems those films
>> had...though, with a team story, it's going to be hard to make EVERY
>> character pivotal to the story...especially since they couldn't really
>> build them up in seperate films before putting them all together in
>> one like with Avengers...with X-Men, Wolverine aside, it's really all
>> or nothing...that said, even if Storm had a more important role in the
>> film, it would have only made the miscasting even more noticable.
>
>True. Although with 3 films they could have done one with some Storm
>focus. Give her a story not just a hanging on character in a sub-plot
>involving actors from Brosnan Bond films.

That's exactly how the X-Men franchise should have gone...each film
should have focused to varying degrees on different characters...keep
the mainstays around but it doesn't have to really be about them all
the time...but instead we get 3 Wolverine films...which pissed me off
from the start...and then they finally break down and actually make
one titled Wolverine and the best part of the movie was actually the
subplot with Xavier helping Cyclops and the kids escape...in other
words, the part that didn't involve Wolverine at all.

[Duggy]

On Sep 23, 12:38 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
wrote:

> >Think about it... What about resolving the Green Goblin 2 story in 3
> >and doing black costume and setting up Venom?

> I just don't think Goblin Jr. is strong enough to be the primary
> villain...plus, it would seem redundant after the original...

True. It was a set up doomed to fail.

> it's the
> kind of thing that works in long-term comic storylines that just falls
> flat in an abbreviated adaptation...and there's always that tendency
> to want to go bigger with each sequel so another Goblin isn't really
> going to cut it as anything but a subplot.

Maybe... maybe a good return from the dead of the original... but film
is less accepting of that.

> I do think Spidey has some lame villains that COULD be cool if someone
> took the right take on them (Vulture, for instance)...but I really
> don't think Sandman is one of those...he has kind of cool powers (at
> least when elevated to the level they were in the film...which is much
> more than typically done in the comics) but it makes him a bad villain
> because the hero really has no way to beat him...hell, all that
> destruction and all that came of it was a little heart ot heart and
> Sandman gets to go home...horrible.

Agreed.

> >> >Then again, I think that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight had too
> >> >much in them and they worked, so I could be wrong.
> >> They did pack a lot in but I think it was generally handled very
> >> well...surprisingly so.
> >Agreed.  I did feel in both films that had too much and I'd got
> >restless... but most people didn't seem to care so it must have
> >worked.

> I got a little annoyed during the early parts of Batman Begins because
> of the inserted childhood sweetheart and Bruce being willing to use a
> gun but it wasn't because I thought there was too much story...if
> anything, it made me want more...I would LOVE to see a
> Smallville-esque Batman show done right...there was talk of one at one
> point but I don't see it happening anytime soon...I think I would set
> it after he returns to Gotham but before he actually becomes Batman
> and each episode would have Highlander-style flashbacks of his travels
> and training...most versions of the origin (notably Year One) have a
> decent window of time there that would work...and, as long as the show
> doesn't drag on for 10 years like Smallville did, there's no reason
> why they couldn't get 4-5 seasons in and have them set over just a
> year or two in his life.

True.

> I thought Smallville's Green Arrow costume wasn't too bad either if
> you trade the glasses/goggles for an actual mask.

Fair enough.

> >True.  Although with 3 films they could have done one with some Storm
> >focus.  Give her a story not just a hanging on character in a sub-plot
> >involving actors from Brosnan Bond films.
> That's exactly how the X-Men franchise should have gone...each film
> should have focused to varying degrees on different characters...keep
> the mainstays around but it doesn't have to really be about them all
> the time...but instead we get 3 Wolverine films...which pissed me off
> from the start...and then they finally break down and actually make
> one titled Wolverine and the best part of the movie was actually the
> subplot with Xavier helping Cyclops and the kids escape...in other
> words, the part that didn't involve Wolverine at all.

I've always said that I would have used Wolvie's leaving at the end of
1 as the beginning of a Wolvie (and sidekick) film where he looks for
his past. Part Origins: Wolverine, part X-Men 2.

Then have a Wolverine-less X-Men 2 and introduce Gambit and give Storm
a storyline.

But, yeah, We got 3 Wolverine films.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>On Sep 23, 12:38�pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
>wrote:
>> >Think about it... What about resolving the Green Goblin 2 story in 3
>> >and doing black costume and setting up Venom?
>
>> I just don't think Goblin Jr. is strong enough to be the primary
>> villain...plus, it would seem redundant after the original...
>
>True. It was a set up doomed to fail.

Yep...guess we'll see how the new version goes...from what little I've
seen, it already looks better than the previous films.

>> it's the
>> kind of thing that works in long-term comic storylines that just falls
>> flat in an abbreviated adaptation...and there's always that tendency
>> to want to go bigger with each sequel so another Goblin isn't really
>> going to cut it as anything but a subplot.
>
>Maybe... maybe a good return from the dead of the original... but film
>is less accepting of that.

True...and, like I said, they always want to go bigger so even his
return would likely have only been a subplot.

I would have been fine with that...just spin him off on his own and
let the main X-Men movies go on without him or at least in a reduced
role.

>Then have a Wolverine-less X-Men 2 and introduce Gambit and give Storm
>a storyline.

I would have loved that...but it would never happen...I'm amazed they
let them do First Class and get away with just the Wolverine
cameo...either way, the problem with that movie is they tried to stick
to the continuity of the previous films...it should have been a
restart.

>But, yeah, We got 3 Wolverine films.

Technically 4.

[Duggy]

On Sep 23, 4:16 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> I just don't think Goblin Jr. is strong enough to be the primary
> >> villain...plus, it would seem redundant after the original...
> >True.  It was a set up doomed to fail.
> Yep...guess we'll see how the new version goes...from what little I've
> seen, it already looks better than the previous films.

I haven't seen much.

I'm always disappointed when a series is stopped because then were get
all front-end stories and no development... (then again... look at the
DCU now).

> >Maybe... maybe a good return from the dead of the original... but film
> >is less accepting of that.
> True...and, like I said, they always want to go bigger so even his
> return would likely have only been a subplot.

Think it would have to be the be reveal as being behind the subplots
and the big fight at the end. Or something. Don't know.

> >I've always said that I would have used Wolvie's leaving at the end of
> >1 as the beginning of a Wolvie (and sidekick) film where he looks for
> >his past.  Part Origins: Wolverine, part X-Men 2.
> I would have been fine with that...just spin him off on his own and
> let the main X-Men movies go on without him or at least in a reduced
> role.

Exactly. Give all the characters room to have a focus and revolve the
cast without have culling we had in X-Men 3.

> >Then have a Wolverine-less X-Men 2 and introduce Gambit and give Storm
> >a storyline.

> I would have loved that...but it would never happen...

Agreed. Most people say "You can't do an X-Men film without
Wolverine" when I say that. And they could be right in terms of
getting the audience in, but for the sake of better films...

> I'm amazed they
> let them do First Class and get away with just the Wolverine
> cameo...either way, the problem with that movie is they tried to stick
> to the continuity of the previous films...it should have been a
> restart.

They should have stuck to previous continuity or restarted. What they
did was sort of both at once which never works quite right.

> >But, yeah, We got 3 Wolverine films.
> Technically 4.

Oh, yeah, I guess some people would could the Wolverine film as a
Wolverine film.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Sep 22, 8:02 pm, green...@yahoo.co.uk (greenaum) wrote:
> [I'm crossposting this to alt.comics.alan-moore, it needs some
> traffic!]

That it does.

> Comics that are fairly lowbrow, mostly about action and a lot of
> people flying round shooting beams at each other, are the same type of
> entertainment as Hollywood blockbusters. The thrills and story are the
> same sort of thing.

Thing is that Hollywood has it's cliches and comics have their
cliches. Some are the same, some are mutually incompatible.

> Something like, say, Shade the Changing Man, the 1990s one, would
> never work in a Hollywood film. It's all about the characters
> introspecting, their personal relationships and their internal view of
> themselves. It's great to read (well, maybe it fell off a bit towards
> the end), but for very different reasons than other comics might be
> great to read.

That's sounding like you've missed a lot of other comics that aren't
"blockbusters".

> Because FX Blockbusters are what Hollywood knows how to make, and
> market, and they know they'll make a lot of money.

Hollywood thinks they know stuff.

A lot of films fit the Hollywood formula and succeed. A lot of films
fit the Hollywood formula and fail.

There are films that break the formula and succeed and those that fit
the formula and fail.

> All comic to film
> adaptations are like this.

All?

Road to Perdition? A History Violence? Ghostworld? American
Splendor? Art School Confidential?

> Batman's an interesting exception. Over the 70-odd years, the comics
> themselves have varied a lot, the character's been reinvented in many
> ways. This means that films are free to make up their own
> interpretation, and nobody can complain it's not true to the comic.

Not the only exception.

James Bond.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:54:03 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>On Sep 23, 4:16 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> I just don't think Goblin Jr. is strong enough to be the primary
>> >> villain...plus, it would seem redundant after the original...
>> >True.  It was a set up doomed to fail.
>> Yep...guess we'll see how the new version goes...from what little I've
>> seen, it already looks better than the previous films.
>
>I haven't seen much.
>
>I'm always disappointed when a series is stopped because then were get
>all front-end stories and no development... (then again... look at the
>DCU now).

For me, it just depends on how much I liked the previous series...if
it was a dud, I'm happy to see it wiped away...in films, anyway.

That said, it doesn't have to be a full-on restart with the
origin...it could be more of a soft reboot like with the Hulk
movies...but I think, in Spiderman's case, they ARE just starting
over.

>> >Maybe... maybe a good return from the dead of the original... but film
>> >is less accepting of that.
>> True...and, like I said, they always want to go bigger so even his
>> return would likely have only been a subplot.
>
>Think it would have to be the be reveal as being behind the subplots
>and the big fight at the end. Or something. Don't know.

Could be a big shocking reveal or it could be a goal Harry is seeking
throughout the film...but, you're rigt, it would probably would have
come right at the end...either way, it probably wouldn't be the focus.

>> >I've always said that I would have used Wolvie's leaving at the end of
>> >1 as the beginning of a Wolvie (and sidekick) film where he looks for
>> >his past.  Part Origins: Wolverine, part X-Men 2.
>> I would have been fine with that...just spin him off on his own and
>> let the main X-Men movies go on without him or at least in a reduced
>> role.
>
>Exactly. Give all the characters room to have a focus and revolve the
>cast without have culling we had in X-Men 3.

Something tells me, if they ever had plans to do something like that,
there would have been some very different casting.

>> >Then have a Wolverine-less X-Men 2 and introduce Gambit and give Storm
>> >a storyline.
>
>> I would have loved that...but it would never happen...
>
>Agreed. Most people say "You can't do an X-Men film without
>Wolverine" when I say that. And they could be right in terms of
>getting the audience in, but for the sake of better films...

I don't think it's necessarily true that people woudln't go see an
X-Men film without Wolverine (though it does seem to be a prevailing
idea from the people making the films, cartoons, etc.)...there are a
lot of popular and recognizable X-Men...yes, Wolverine is the most
popular, but he's not the be all and end all...the series definitely
didn't need him front and center all the time.

>> I'm amazed they
>> let them do First Class and get away with just the Wolverine
>> cameo...either way, the problem with that movie is they tried to stick
>> to the continuity of the previous films...it should have been a
>> restart.
>
>They should have stuck to previous continuity or restarted. What they
>did was sort of both at once which never works quite right.

I haven't actually seen it yet so I was just going by what I'd
heard...the whole idea just kind of puts me off because they did at
least loosely try to stick to the film continuity and it really
limited their options in terms of line-up and what not...I do like the
basic idea of the story but, to be done right, it needed to be a
restart, in my opinion...free of the baggage and timeline of the
previous films.

>> >But, yeah, We got 3 Wolverine films.
>> Technically 4.
>
>Oh, yeah, I guess some people would could the Wolverine film as a
>Wolverine film.

Probably so.

[Duggy]

On Sep 24, 6:50 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:54:03 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >I'm always disappointed when a series is stopped because then were get
> >all front-end stories and no development... (then again... look at the
> >DCU now).
> For me, it just depends on how much I liked the previous series...if
> it was a dud, I'm happy to see it wiped away...in films, anyway.

True. If the series has never been bad or turned bad I have mixed
feelings.

> That said, it doesn't have to be a full-on restart with the
> origin...it could be more of a soft reboot like with the Hulk
> movies...

Or Superman Returns (I'm not saying it always works...)

> but I think, in Spiderman's case, they ARE just starting
> over.

That is my understanding.

> >> >Maybe... maybe a good return from the dead of the original... but film
> >> >is less accepting of that.
> >> True...and, like I said, they always want to go bigger so even his
> >> return would likely have only been a subplot.

> >Think it would have to be the be reveal as being behind the subplots
> >and the big fight at the end.  Or something.  Don't know.
> Could be a big shocking reveal or it could be a goal Harry is seeking
> throughout the film...but, you're rigt, it would probably would have
> come right at the end...either way, it probably wouldn't be the focus.

Then again "William Dafoe returns to Spider-man series" stories would
ruin it.

> >Exactly.  Give all the characters room to have a focus and revolve the
> >cast without have culling we had in X-Men 3.
> Something tells me, if they ever had plans to do something like that,
> there would have been some very different casting.

I think we're going to see the "First Class" sequels doing that.

> >> >Then have a Wolverine-less X-Men 2 and introduce Gambit and give Storm
> >> >a storyline.
> >> I would have loved that...but it would never happen...
> >Agreed.  Most people say "You can't do an X-Men film without
> >Wolverine" when I say that.  And they could be right in terms of
> >getting the audience in, but for the sake of better films...

> I don't think it's necessarily true that people woudln't go see an
> X-Men film without Wolverine (though it does seem to be a prevailing
> idea from the people making the films, cartoons, etc.)...there are a
> lot of popular and recognizable X-Men...yes, Wolverine is the most
> popular, but he's not the be all and end all...the series definitely
> didn't need him front and center all the time.

I agree. People tell me otherwise. (Not sure if they think it
applies only to others or to themselves).

> >They should have stuck to previous continuity or restarted.  What they
> >did was sort of both at once which never works quite right.
> I haven't actually seen it yet so I was just going by what I'd
> heard...the whole idea just kind of puts me off because they did at
> least loosely try to stick to the film continuity and it really
> limited their options in terms of line-up and what not...I do like the
> basic idea of the story but, to be done right, it needed to be a
> restart, in my opinion...free of the baggage and timeline of the
> previous films.

It almost exactly remakes the beginning of X-men 1, it has a cameo by
Hugh and the Mystique make-up is identical (and now disturbing after
its first appearance in this film)... which sets it up as a
continuation. But it doesn't fit.

> >> >But, yeah, We got 3 Wolverine films.
> >> Technically 4.
> >Oh, yeah, I guess some people would could the Wolverine film as a
> >Wolverine film.
> Probably so.

People are funny like that.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:53:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>On Sep 24, 6:50 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:54:03 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>> >I'm always disappointed when a series is stopped because then were get
>> >all front-end stories and no development... (then again... look at the
>> >DCU now).
>> For me, it just depends on how much I liked the previous series...if
>> it was a dud, I'm happy to see it wiped away...in films, anyway.
>
>True. If the series has never been bad or turned bad I have mixed
>feelings.

In a case like that, I think it really depends how much time has
passed...after a certain amount of time, I think a restart is a good
idea...you mention Superman Returns below and I think it was a mistake
to try to do any kind of continuation of the original films both
because of the time that has passed and because it just doesn't seem
right without Chris Reeve...he's just too closely associated with that
version of the character to just swap him out and keep going.

>> That said, it doesn't have to be a full-on restart with the
>> origin...it could be more of a soft reboot like with the Hulk
>> movies...
>
>Or Superman Returns (I'm not saying it always works...)

It certainly helps if the fans can actually figure out what fits with
the previous films.

>> but I think, in Spiderman's case, they ARE just starting
>> over.
>
>That is my understanding.

Hey, if it means mechanical webshooters, I'm all for it.

>> >> >Maybe... maybe a good return from the dead of the original... but film
>> >> >is less accepting of that.
>> >> True...and, like I said, they always want to go bigger so even his
>> >> return would likely have only been a subplot.
>
>> >Think it would have to be the be reveal as being behind the subplots
>> >and the big fight at the end.  Or something.  Don't know.
>> Could be a big shocking reveal or it could be a goal Harry is seeking
>> throughout the film...but, you're rigt, it would probably would have
>> come right at the end...either way, it probably wouldn't be the focus.
>
>Then again "William Dafoe returns to Spider-man series" stories would
>ruin it.

Probably but not necessarily...he did, after all, appear briefly in
either the 2nd or 3rd film (I forget which) as a kind of ghost
haunting Harry...so his mere presence on the set wouldn't necessarily
spoil anything.

>> >Exactly.  Give all the characters room to have a focus and revolve the
>> >cast without have culling we had in X-Men 3.
>> Something tells me, if they ever had plans to do something like that,
>> there would have been some very different casting.
>
>I think we're going to see the "First Class" sequels doing that.

We'll see...I'm never really going to be able to appreciate the X-Men
films unless they restart and do something at least somewhat in line
with the comics...I don't expect an exact adaptation or anything but
they started off with a huge gap between the comics and movies and
each movie just made that gap larger...and the prequels have turned
that gap into the Grand Canyon.

>> >> >Then have a Wolverine-less X-Men 2 and introduce Gambit and give Storm
>> >> >a storyline.
>> >> I would have loved that...but it would never happen...
>> >Agreed.  Most people say "You can't do an X-Men film without
>> >Wolverine" when I say that.  And they could be right in terms of
>> >getting the audience in, but for the sake of better films...
>
>> I don't think it's necessarily true that people woudln't go see an
>> X-Men film without Wolverine (though it does seem to be a prevailing
>> idea from the people making the films, cartoons, etc.)...there are a
>> lot of popular and recognizable X-Men...yes, Wolverine is the most
>> popular, but he's not the be all and end all...the series definitely
>> didn't need him front and center all the time.
>
>I agree. People tell me otherwise. (Not sure if they think it
>applies only to others or to themselves).

The comics don't have him front and center all the time...they shove
him into most of the books but, more often than not, he's just there
as a glorified background character to boost sales (which annoys the
hell out of me but that's neither here nor there)...the current Schism
storyline aside (in which he plays one of the two key roles), X-Men
proper storylines that focus on him as the central character have been
relatively rare since they spun him off as a regular solo character.

I would agree that he needed to appear in the first X-Men movie but he
didn't have to be the star...and certainly didn't have to be the star
of ALL of them.

>> >They should have stuck to previous continuity or restarted.  What they
>> >did was sort of both at once which never works quite right.
>> I haven't actually seen it yet so I was just going by what I'd
>> heard...the whole idea just kind of puts me off because they did at
>> least loosely try to stick to the film continuity and it really
>> limited their options in terms of line-up and what not...I do like the
>> basic idea of the story but, to be done right, it needed to be a
>> restart, in my opinion...free of the baggage and timeline of the
>> previous films.
>
>It almost exactly remakes the beginning of X-men 1, it has a cameo by
>Hugh and the Mystique make-up is identical (and now disturbing after
>its first appearance in this film)... which sets it up as a
>continuation. But it doesn't fit.

Fair enough...I'll watch it eventually, I'm sure...but it's not high
on my list.

>> >> >But, yeah, We got 3 Wolverine films.
>> >> Technically 4.
>> >Oh, yeah, I guess some people would could the Wolverine film as a
>> >Wolverine film.
>> Probably so.
>
>People are funny like that.

Yeah...people and their silly logic.

[Duggy]

On Sep 24, 9:37 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:53:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>

> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >On Sep 24, 6:50 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:54:03 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> >> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >> >I'm always disappointed when a series is stopped because then were get
> >> >all front-end stories and no development... (then again... look at the
> >> >DCU now).
> >> For me, it just depends on how much I liked the previous series...if
> >> it was a dud, I'm happy to see it wiped away...in films, anyway.
> >True.  If the series has never been bad or turned bad I have mixed
> >feelings.
> In a case like that, I think it really depends how much time has
> passed...after a certain amount of time, I think a restart is a good
> idea...you mention Superman Returns below and I think it was a mistake
> to try to do any kind of continuation of the original films both
> because of the time that has passed and because it just doesn't seem
> right without Chris Reeve...he's just too closely associated with that
> version of the character to just swap him out and keep going.

True. I can understand a lot of the choices made for Superman
Returns, but it was obvious they were going to fail.

Like making it a continuation: Good idea in terms of, as I say,
continuing the story instead of *another* origin, but failure for
pretty much the reasons you say.

> >> That said, it doesn't have to be a full-on restart with the
> >> origin...it could be more of a soft reboot like with the Hulk
> >> movies...
> >Or Superman Returns (I'm not saying it always works...)
> It certainly helps if the fans can actually figure out what fits with
> the previous films.

Well, sure, that was another screw up they made.

> >> but I think, in Spiderman's case, they ARE just starting
> >> over.
> >That is my understanding.
> Hey, if it means mechanical webshooters, I'm all for it.

Fair enough. I think the old series still had potential (even without
the core cast/director) but I'm not attached to it enough to be upset.

> >Then again "William Dafoe returns to Spider-man series" stories would
> >ruin it.
> Probably but not necessarily...he did, after all, appear briefly in
> either the 2nd or 3rd film (I forget which) as a kind of ghost
> haunting Harry...so his mere presence on the set wouldn't necessarily
> spoil anything.

True. Not to mention we've been told that Liam's filming flash back
scenes for Dark Knight Rises... but that could be a decoy for Ra's
returns (not saying it is, but it's not impossible).

> >I think we're going to see the "First Class" sequels doing that.
> We'll see...I'm never really going to be able to appreciate the X-Men
> films unless they restart and do something at least somewhat in line
> with the comics...

I'm not saying you'll like it, just that they seem to be going for a
revolving group in different era if rumour is to be believed.

> I don't expect an exact adaptation or anything but
> they started off with a huge gap between the comics and movies and
> each movie just made that gap larger...and the prequels have turned
> that gap into the Grand Canyon.

Fair enough. I sometimes wish that films were cheap and simple and
people accepted different universes so that they could make X-Men
sequels and prequels for people who liked that series and a adaptation
for people who wanted that, etc... And Spider-man 4 and Amazing
Spider-man 1.

> The comics don't have him front and center all the time...they shove
> him into most of the books but, more often than not, he's just there
> as a glorified background character to boost sales (which annoys the
> hell out of me but that's neither here nor there)...the current Schism
> storyline aside (in which he plays one of the two key roles), X-Men
> proper storylines that focus on him as the central character have been
> relatively rare since they spun him off as a regular solo character.

> I would agree that he needed to appear in the first X-Men movie but he
> didn't have to be the star...and certainly didn't have to be the star
> of ALL of them.

Agree completely.

> >It almost exactly remakes the beginning of X-men 1, it has a cameo by
> >Hugh and the Mystique make-up is identical (and now disturbing after
> >its first appearance in this film)... which sets it up as a
> >continuation.  But it doesn't fit.
> Fair enough...I'll watch it eventually, I'm sure...but it's not high
> on my list.

I figured. I tried not to go into detail because, well, I didn't want
to spoil (although I'm sure most of it has been)

> >> >> >But, yeah, We got 3 Wolverine films.
> >> >> Technically 4.
> >> >Oh, yeah, I guess some people would could the Wolverine film as a
> >> >Wolverine film.
> >> Probably so.
> >People are funny like that.
> Yeah...people and their silly logic.

We should kill them. Kill Them All.

===
= DUG.
===

[Madlove]

Duggy wrote:
> On Sep 21, 6:53 pm, IsThisScottie <thisissco...@trip.com> wrote:

>> grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 05:20:50 +0000 (UTC), IsThisScottie

>>> <thisissco...@trip.com> wrote:
>>>> Tim Turnip <timtur...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:23:59 -0500, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:

>>>> I wonder why that is so. What is it about the Victorian setting that
>>>> repels audiences?

>>> The better question is what is it about the Victorian setting that
>>> Hollywood THINKS repels audiences?

>> Action? I was all for Iron Man as Sherlock Holmes in Victorian England
>> until I saw the trailer... ...it suggested mindless action in lieu of any
>> actual sleuthing.

> Did well enough to get a sequel.

> ===
> = DUG.
> ====

So did 'Weekend At Bernie's'... :-(

[Duggy]

> So did 'Weekend At Bernie's'... :-(

Many people still consider that a classic.

The sequel. Ew.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:37:59 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>On Sep 24, 9:37 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:53:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>>
>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>> >On Sep 24, 6:50 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:54:03 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> >> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>> >> >I'm always disappointed when a series is stopped because then were get
>> >> >all front-end stories and no development... (then again... look at the
>> >> >DCU now).
>> >> For me, it just depends on how much I liked the previous series...if
>> >> it was a dud, I'm happy to see it wiped away...in films, anyway.
>> >True.  If the series has never been bad or turned bad I have mixed
>> >feelings.
>> In a case like that, I think it really depends how much time has
>> passed...after a certain amount of time, I think a restart is a good
>> idea...you mention Superman Returns below and I think it was a mistake
>> to try to do any kind of continuation of the original films both
>> because of the time that has passed and because it just doesn't seem
>> right without Chris Reeve...he's just too closely associated with that
>> version of the character to just swap him out and keep going.
>
>True. I can understand a lot of the choices made for Superman
>Returns, but it was obvious they were going to fail.

Seems like it should have been obvious to the filmakers too...but
apparently not.

>Like making it a continuation: Good idea in terms of, as I say,
>continuing the story instead of *another* origin, but failure for
>pretty much the reasons you say.

They still could have done something like that...like the Hulk
example, you don't redo the origin (especially when it's one as well
known as Superman's), just tell a new story different enough from the
previous film incarnation to stand apart (and obviously no direct
references to earlier films) but not so different that it looks like a
completely different version of the character (then you actually would
need a new origin).

>> >> That said, it doesn't have to be a full-on restart with the
>> >> origin...it could be more of a soft reboot like with the Hulk
>> >> movies...
>> >Or Superman Returns (I'm not saying it always works...)
>> It certainly helps if the fans can actually figure out what fits with
>> the previous films.
>
>Well, sure, that was another screw up they made.

There are so many to choose from.

>> >> but I think, in Spiderman's case, they ARE just starting
>> >> over.
>> >That is my understanding.
>> Hey, if it means mechanical webshooters, I'm all for it.
>
>Fair enough. I think the old series still had potential (even without
>the core cast/director) but I'm not attached to it enough to be upset.

I don't know...it really felt like the old series was kind of played
out to me...not just because of the people involved wanted out, but
story-wise...they had touched on pretty much all the major milestones
for the character they could with that version...their status quo had
kind of limited their options...I suspect, had that series continued,
it would have veered off on some wild tangent because they were kind
of backed into a corner as far as character development goes (kind of
like what's happening with the Ultimate Spiderman comic right
now)...there are always more generic Spiderman stories that can be
told but the characters are what make it really work...otherwise, you
just don't care what happens.

>> >Then again "William Dafoe returns to Spider-man series" stories would
>> >ruin it.
>> Probably but not necessarily...he did, after all, appear briefly in
>> either the 2nd or 3rd film (I forget which) as a kind of ghost
>> haunting Harry...so his mere presence on the set wouldn't necessarily
>> spoil anything.
>
>True. Not to mention we've been told that Liam's filming flash back
>scenes for Dark Knight Rises... but that could be a decoy for Ra's
>returns (not saying it is, but it's not impossible).

Not impossible...but not likely, either...Nolan doesn't seem like one
to backtrack like that.

>> >I think we're going to see the "First Class" sequels doing that.
>> We'll see...I'm never really going to be able to appreciate the X-Men
>> films unless they restart and do something at least somewhat in line
>> with the comics...
>
>I'm not saying you'll like it, just that they seem to be going for a
>revolving group in different era if rumour is to be believed.

They interview I read said the next one would be set a decade or so
later and have more or less the same cast with one or two additional
major characters...one of which was supposed to help bring it more in
line with traditional early X-Men...the interviewer suggested that
meant either Cyclops or Jean.

>> I don't expect an exact adaptation or anything but
>> they started off with a huge gap between the comics and movies and
>> each movie just made that gap larger...and the prequels have turned
>> that gap into the Grand Canyon.
>
>Fair enough. I sometimes wish that films were cheap and simple and
>people accepted different universes so that they could make X-Men
>sequels and prequels for people who liked that series and a adaptation
>for people who wanted that, etc... And Spider-man 4 and Amazing
>Spider-man 1.

I can see a benefit to that approach (something for everyone and all
that) but I would have the same problem with it that I have with
multiple ongoing versions of the same characters in comics...I think
it kind of cuts the drama and impact from any story if you know it
doesn't really matter because there's another version coming out next
month where it never happened.

>> The comics don't have him front and center all the time...they shove
>> him into most of the books but, more often than not, he's just there
>> as a glorified background character to boost sales (which annoys the
>> hell out of me but that's neither here nor there)...the current Schism
>> storyline aside (in which he plays one of the two key roles), X-Men
>> proper storylines that focus on him as the central character have been
>> relatively rare since they spun him off as a regular solo character.
>
>> I would agree that he needed to appear in the first X-Men movie but he
>> didn't have to be the star...and certainly didn't have to be the star
>> of ALL of them.
>
>Agree completely.
>
>> >It almost exactly remakes the beginning of X-men 1, it has a cameo by
>> >Hugh and the Mystique make-up is identical (and now disturbing after
>> >its first appearance in this film)... which sets it up as a
>> >continuation.  But it doesn't fit.
>> Fair enough...I'll watch it eventually, I'm sure...but it's not high
>> on my list.
>
>I figured. I tried not to go into detail because, well, I didn't want
>to spoil (although I'm sure most of it has been)

I know the basics but, whereas I used to scour the internet for info
on upcoming comic movies and TV, I've gotten to the point where I
avoid learning too much about these movies in advance...sometimes
because I'd rather be surprised...and sometimes because I just don't
care.

>> >> >> >But, yeah, We got 3 Wolverine films.
>> >> >> Technically 4.
>> >> >Oh, yeah, I guess some people would could the Wolverine film as a
>> >> >Wolverine film.
>> >> Probably so.
>> >People are funny like that.
>> Yeah...people and their silly logic.
>
>We should kill them. Kill Them All.

That certainly would solve a lot of problems...and create all new
ones.

[grinningdemon]

The original...hell yes.

>The sequel. Ew.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Duggy]

On Sep 24, 1:43 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:37:59 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

It's probably less obvious when you're in it.

> >Like making it a continuation:  Good idea in terms of, as I say,
> >continuing the story instead of *another* origin, but failure for
> >pretty much the reasons you say.
> They still could have done something like that...like the Hulk
> example, you don't redo the origin (especially when it's one as well
> known as Superman's),

True. One of the elements that made sense but didn't work was the
return to Krypton. They could have done something like that to
reference without retelling the origin... like in Burton's Batman, but
it just became an excuse for him being missing.

> just tell a new story different enough from the
> previous film incarnation to stand apart (and obviously no direct
> references to earlier films)

True... even so a lot of people still seem to think that The
Incredible Hulk is a sequel to Hulk.

> but not so different that it looks like a
> completely different version of the character (then you actually would
> need a new origin).

True. Then again, a properly done Superman would fit that with the
original movies.

> >> >> That said, it doesn't have to be a full-on restart with the
> >> >> origin...it could be more of a soft reboot like with the Hulk
> >> >> movies...
> >> >Or Superman Returns (I'm not saying it always works...)
> >> It certainly helps if the fans can actually figure out what fits with
> >> the previous films.
> >Well, sure, that was another screw up they made.
> There are so many to choose from.

Many, many, many.

> >> >> but I think, in Spiderman's case, they ARE just starting
> >> >> over.
> >> >That is my understanding.
> >> Hey, if it means mechanical webshooters, I'm all for it.
> >Fair enough.  I think the old series still had potential (even without
> >the core cast/director) but I'm not attached to it enough to be upset.
> I don't know...it really felt like the old series was kind of played
> out to me...not just because of the people involved wanted out, but
> story-wise...they had touched on pretty much all the major milestones
> for the character they could with that version...their status quo had
> kind of limited their options...I suspect, had that series continued,
> it would have veered off on some wild tangent because they were kind
> of backed into a corner as far as character development goes (kind of
> like what's happening with the Ultimate Spiderman comic right
> now)...there are always more generic Spiderman stories that can be
> told but the characters are what make it really work...otherwise, you
> just don't care what happens.

I guess.

> >> >Then again "William Dafoe returns to Spider-man series" stories would
> >> >ruin it.
> >> Probably but not necessarily...he did, after all, appear briefly in
> >> either the 2nd or 3rd film (I forget which) as a kind of ghost
> >> haunting Harry...so his mere presence on the set wouldn't necessarily
> >> spoil anything.
> >True.  Not to mention we've been told that Liam's filming flash back
> >scenes for Dark Knight Rises... but that could be a decoy for Ra's
> >returns (not saying it is, but it's not impossible).
> Not impossible...but not likely, either...Nolan doesn't seem like one
> to backtrack like that.

I'm not expecting it. I'm just pointing out that I was wrong about
including and actor on set and not giving away the ending.

> >I'm not saying you'll like it, just that they seem to be going for a
> >revolving group in different era if rumour is to be believed.
> They interview I read said the next one would be set a decade or so
> later and have more or less the same cast with one or two additional
> major characters...one of which was supposed to help bring it more in
> line with traditional early X-Men...the interviewer suggested that
> meant either Cyclops or Jean.

Vaguely what I heard. I expect it to tie into Watergate.

> >Fair enough.  I sometimes wish that films were cheap and simple and
> >people accepted different universes so that they could make X-Men
> >sequels and prequels for people who liked that series and a adaptation
> >for people who wanted that, etc...  And Spider-man 4 and Amazing
> >Spider-man 1.

> I can see a benefit to that approach (something for everyone and all
> that) but I would have the same problem with it that I have with
> multiple ongoing versions of the same characters in comics...

That's why I said "and people could accept different universe".
Mostly they can't.

> >> >It almost exactly remakes the beginning of X-men 1, it has a cameo by
> >> >Hugh and the Mystique make-up is identical (and now disturbing after
> >> >its first appearance in this film)... which sets it up as a
> >> >continuation. But it doesn't fit.
> >> Fair enough...I'll watch it eventually, I'm sure...but it's not high
> >> on my list.
> >I figured.  I tried not to go into detail because, well, I didn't want
> >to spoil (although I'm sure most of it has been)

> I know the basics but, whereas I used to scour the internet for info
> on upcoming comic movies and TV, I've gotten to the point where I
> avoid learning too much about these movies in advance...sometimes
> because I'd rather be surprised...and sometimes because I just don't
> care.

Ditto.

> >> >> >> >But, yeah, We got 3 Wolverine films.
> >> >> >> Technically 4.
> >> >> >Oh, yeah, I guess some people would could the Wolverine film as a
> >> >> >Wolverine film.
> >> >> Probably so.
> >> >People are funny like that.
> >> Yeah...people and their silly logic.
> >We should kill them.  Kill Them All.
> That certainly would solve a lot of problems...and create all new
> ones.

Yeah. It would be left to you and me to repopulate the world with out
inbred grandchildren.

There may be a flaw with that plan that I'm missing.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

Surely they WATCHED it at some point.

>> >Like making it a continuation:  Good idea in terms of, as I say,
>> >continuing the story instead of *another* origin, but failure for
>> >pretty much the reasons you say.
>> They still could have done something like that...like the Hulk
>> example, you don't redo the origin (especially when it's one as well
>> known as Superman's),
>
>True. One of the elements that made sense but didn't work was the
>return to Krypton. They could have done something like that to
>reference without retelling the origin... like in Burton's Batman, but
>it just became an excuse for him being missing.

Right.

>> just tell a new story different enough from the
>> previous film incarnation to stand apart (and obviously no direct
>> references to earlier films)
>
>True... even so a lot of people still seem to think that The
>Incredible Hulk is a sequel to Hulk.

That's the beauty of it...it works either way.

>> but not so different that it looks like a
>> completely different version of the character (then you actually would
>> need a new origin).
>
>True. Then again, a properly done Superman would fit that with the
>original movies.

That depends on the version of Superman you're shooting for...if you
stick with the Silver Age version (like the original movies), then
there's no problem (unless you take it to some extreme like All Star
Superman)...if you want to go with something more like the Byrne
version (like Lois & Clark or, to an extent, Smallville), then it
would probably be best to do the complete restart with some version of
an origin...but his origin is so well known that, as with the original
movie, it doesn't need to be the WHOLE movie.

I just think a clean break is probably best...but that's just me.

>> >> >Then again "William Dafoe returns to Spider-man series" stories would
>> >> >ruin it.
>> >> Probably but not necessarily...he did, after all, appear briefly in
>> >> either the 2nd or 3rd film (I forget which) as a kind of ghost
>> >> haunting Harry...so his mere presence on the set wouldn't necessarily
>> >> spoil anything.
>> >True.  Not to mention we've been told that Liam's filming flash back
>> >scenes for Dark Knight Rises... but that could be a decoy for Ra's
>> >returns (not saying it is, but it's not impossible).
>> Not impossible...but not likely, either...Nolan doesn't seem like one
>> to backtrack like that.
>
>I'm not expecting it. I'm just pointing out that I was wrong about
>including and actor on set and not giving away the ending.
>
>> >I'm not saying you'll like it, just that they seem to be going for a
>> >revolving group in different era if rumour is to be believed.
>> They interview I read said the next one would be set a decade or so
>> later and have more or less the same cast with one or two additional
>> major characters...one of which was supposed to help bring it more in
>> line with traditional early X-Men...the interviewer suggested that
>> meant either Cyclops or Jean.
>
>Vaguely what I heard. I expect it to tie into Watergate.

If they stick to making it reflect historical events and eras,
probably so...unless they all go hippy...or get drafted.

>> >Fair enough.  I sometimes wish that films were cheap and simple and
>> >people accepted different universes so that they could make X-Men
>> >sequels and prequels for people who liked that series and a adaptation
>> >for people who wanted that, etc...  And Spider-man 4 and Amazing
>> >Spider-man 1.
>
>> I can see a benefit to that approach (something for everyone and all
>> that) but I would have the same problem with it that I have with
>> multiple ongoing versions of the same characters in comics...
>
>That's why I said "and people could accept different universe".
>Mostly they can't.

Fair enough.

Test tube babies.

>There may be a flaw with that plan that I'm missing.

You're assuming I wouldn't kill you too...once you start, it's
probably pretty hard to stop.

[Duggy]

On Sep 24, 3:59 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 22:06:06 -0700 (PDT), Duggy

That's after the event.

> >> just tell a new story different enough from the
> >> previous film incarnation to stand apart (and obviously no direct
> >> references to earlier films)
> >True... even so a lot of people still seem to think that The
> >Incredible Hulk is a sequel to Hulk.
> That's the beauty of it...it works either way.

OK.

> >> but not so different that it looks like a
> >> completely different version of the character (then you actually would
> >> need a new origin).
> >True.  Then again, a properly done Superman would fit that with the
> >original movies.
> That depends on the version of Superman you're shooting for...if you
> stick with the Silver Age version (like the original movies), then
> there's no problem (unless you take it to some extreme like All Star
> Superman)...if you want to go with something more like the Byrne
> version (like Lois & Clark or, to an extent, Smallville), then it
> would probably be best to do the complete restart with some version of
> an origin...but his origin is so well known that, as with the original
> movie, it doesn't need to be the WHOLE movie.

True.

> >I guess.
> I just think a clean break is probably best...but that's just me.

Fair enough.

> >Vaguely what I heard.  I expect it to tie into Watergate.
> If they stick to making it reflect historical events and eras,
> probably so...unless they all go hippy...or get drafted.

True, I guess the moon-landing's in their too.

Funny thing about First Class is it made me want to watch 2 films I
own again: 13 Days and Nixon/Frost.

> >> >> >> >> >But, yeah, We got 3 Wolverine films.
> >> >> >> >> Technically 4.
> >> >> >> >Oh, yeah, I guess some people would could the Wolverine film as a
> >> >> >> >Wolverine film.
> >> >> >> Probably so.
> >> >> >People are funny like that.
> >> >> Yeah...people and their silly logic.
> >> >We should kill them. Kill Them All.
> >> That certainly would solve a lot of problems...and create all new
> >> ones.
> >Yeah.  It would be left to you and me to repopulate the world with out
> >inbred grandchildren.
> Test tube babies.

True. We could raise competing armies of babies to fight each other
for us.

> >There may be a flaw with that plan that I'm missing.
> You're assuming I wouldn't kill you too...once you start, it's
> probably pretty hard to stop.

I wasn't going to mention that until the last minute... but now it's
in the open, yup.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

Still...it must have occurred to someone at some point during the
making of that movie just how much it sucked.

One thing I do appreciate about it is that they decided to make it a
period piece like that...I just wish it was really the original X-Men
in the movie...of course, that wouldn't have fit with the previous
films but, oh well.

Then there are all those complaints about how it would make the X-Men
too old by modern day but I don't think that's necessarily true...one
thing about the comics that always struck me was that there are quite
a few mutants running around out there that have lived impossibly long
lives (Wolverine, Apocalypse, etc.)...and some that are still within
the boundries of a normal lifespan but have held up remarkably well
despite being quite elderly by now (Magneto, Xavier, Cable,
etc.)...even in that horrible X-Men: The End series, set 20 or so
years in the future, most of the characters hadn't visibly aged much
if at all...and there have been several other stories set farther in
the future (as much as a hundred years or so) where certain X-Men were
still around...Gambit, Cyclops, and Storm have all been shown as still
living that far in the future in alternate future stories...it's not
really a topic that's ever been addressed that I can recall but I
always wondered why they didn't just come out and say that mutants, in
general, have longer lifespans than normal humans...I'm not saying
they should all live thousands of years like Apocalypse but saying
they age a bit slower would just make sense with what has been
shown...in the comics, at least.

>> >> >> >> >> >But, yeah, We got 3 Wolverine films.
>> >> >> >> >> Technically 4.
>> >> >> >> >Oh, yeah, I guess some people would could the Wolverine film as a
>> >> >> >> >Wolverine film.
>> >> >> >> Probably so.
>> >> >> >People are funny like that.
>> >> >> Yeah...people and their silly logic.
>> >> >We should kill them. Kill Them All.
>> >> That certainly would solve a lot of problems...and create all new
>> >> ones.
>> >Yeah.  It would be left to you and me to repopulate the world with out
>> >inbred grandchildren.
>> Test tube babies.
>
>True. We could raise competing armies of babies to fight each other
>for us.

Absolutely...vicious, murdering baby armies having at each
other...sounds like fun.

>> >There may be a flaw with that plan that I'm missing.
>> You're assuming I wouldn't kill you too...once you start, it's
>> probably pretty hard to stop.
>
>I wasn't going to mention that until the last minute... but now it's
>in the open, yup.

Best of luck to you, then...you better watch out for when I send my
baby ninja assassins your way.

[Madlove]

Duggy wrote:
> Did well enough to get a sequel.

Madlove wrote:
> So did 'Weekend At Bernie's'... :-(

Duggy wrote:
> Many people still consider that a classic.

Many people consider Harlequin novels to be literature.

[Madlove]

Duggy wrote:

Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Guess this is as good a place to ask this question.
>>
>> I just stumbled across LoEG in TV Guide where it appears to have taken
>> the same tone in its opinion of the movie vs. the graphic novel that
>> is prevalent here. Primarily it says it lacks a cohesive plot.
>>
>> Not having read the comic can someone tell me if the plot was
>> seriously different from the GN or if the problem is in the
>> presentation of it?

> Majorly different plot.
>
> And the presentation sucked too.

And those drives on the "roads" of Venice.

[Pat O'Neill]

Not to mention the canals of Venice are neither wide enough or deep
enough to accommodate the Nautilus as depicted. And Tom Sawyer would
not have been thirty-ish in the late Victorian era of the
film...rather he would have been in his fifties or sixties. The events
of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer take place in the 1840s, when Tom is
about 10 or 11.