JiC: A MESS OF THE LEAGUE

[MattBrady]

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/SDCC03/LXG.jpg" width="300" height="236" border="0" hspace="2" align="right"><I>by Mike Sangiacomo</I>

How many rushed out to see the <I>League of Extraordinary Gentlemen</I> last weekend?

How many will see it again?

Anyone?

Didn’t think so.

I was thinking of writing a full-scale review carefully explaining the problems in the film and where it went wrong.

Nah, why bother?

After all, director Stephen Norrington, or Sean Connery if you believe the reports, didn’t bother to produce a movie that made sense, so why should I try to make sense of it?

So much for the unbroken string of good movies based on comic books.

I would like to know if everyone in the cast (with a few exceptions) are as weak actors as they appeared to be in the film, or if it was just this particular film.

Think back, did any of the actors ever actually show any emotion? I haven’t seen such dull faces on people since...well actually since the faces of the people in the audience.

In a movie rife with sins, let’s look at just a few of them, beyond the fact that the lead character’s name, Alan Quatermain, was misspelled throughout the movie. The biggest was the freaking car and the way Tom Sawyer jumped into the driver’s seat and tore around Venice like Mario Andretti on speed.

Okay, I’ll allow that Captain Nemo had the smarts to invent a car years ahead of anyone else. I’ll even accept that for some reason he would accessorize it to look like a Victorian pimpmobile.

But how did Sawyer know how to drive it? Did he tool around the sub on the way to Venice? Then, as he drove around, hundreds of men with rifles appearing on rooftops, as if they knew his exact route, and firing at him. None hit him or the car.

And just what was he doing anyway? It was something about blowing up a building and disrupting the chain reaction series of explosions that were going to sink Venice for some ridiculously unclear reason.

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/SDCC03/monsters_Gent.jpg" width="175" height="274" border="0" hspace="2" align="left">Wait a minute. If there are 50 sets of explosives set to go off why would setting one off prematurely stop the process? Were they were up like Christmas tree lights ? And wouldn’t they continue to go off starting from the place where Sawyer’s building was blown up? The idea of a submarine as huge as the Nautilus being able to tool up and down the canals of Venice is laughable. Most of those canals are shallow and incredibly narrow.

Then there is the whole premise of the movie, the big revelation which elicited more “Huhs?” than anything else. I won’t divulge it for the benefit of anyone planning to see it, but I’ve seen Powerpuff Girls cartoons with better plots.

My question is how anything written by James Robinson could be this bad?

I would hazard a guess that his screenplay was gutted and rewritten many times to come up with this turkey. I suppose the irony was the ending where the way was left clear for a sequel.

Oh yeah, that’ll happen.

Bottom line, instead of going to the movies go out and buy the collected edition of <b>League</b> or Jess Nevins’s <b>Heroes And Monsters, the Unofficial Companion to the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen</b>. Nevins’ book is worth it if only for the cover art by John Picacio, which shows how cool the League could look.

Sorry Kevin O’Neill fans, but his art is an acquired taste.

Michael Sangiacomo is a statewide news reporter for the Plain Dealer newspaper in Cleveland, Ohio. His syndicated "Journey Into Comics" weekly column on the state of the comic book business, can be found in newspapers and at the Newsarama website. His monthly comic book column appears the first Saturday of each month in the Plain Dealer Arts page and is syndicated through Newhouse Newspapers. He also writes a twice-monthly audiobooks review column covering crime thrillers and mysteries that can be seen at <a href="http://www.audiobookstoday.com" target="_blank">www.audiobookstoday.com</a>. He currently is developing Nowhere Man...er, <b>Phantom Jack</b> for Marvel’s Epic imprint.

[G Dog]

Originally posted by MattBrady
So much for the unbroken string of good movies based on comic books.

Well, the string was already broken with Daredevil. That movie was bloody awful.

[TVerBeek]

Originally posted by MattBrady
I would like to know if everyone in the cast (with a few exceptions) are as weak actors as they appeared to be in the film, or if it was just this particular film. Shane West (who played Tom Sawyer, Jr.*) was pretty good in the TV drama Once and Again. And obviously Connery's done good work.

Incidentally, while I agree that this movie made no sense, I'd rather sit through it again than sit once through most of the stoopid poop-joke collections, formulaic hook-up flicks, and tedious explosion fests that litter the multiplexes of America. I knew in advance that it wouldn't be anything like the book, and it was fun to watch in a B-movie sorta way.

*The Adventures of Tom Sawyer took place half a century before the setting of this movie. Unless Tom had a magic portrait stashed some place, there's no way he'd be as young as he appears in this movie. This could only be his son... unless it was his grandson.

[G Dog]

Originally posted by MattBrady
My question is how anything written by James Robinson could be this bad?

Go rent Comic Book Villains, written and directed by Robinson. Apparently his great writing in comics just does not translate to film...

[Suthernboy]

I hate that he did not enjoy this movie, but I loved it. Whenever you go into a movie, especially a comic related movie, you have to give up your disbelief. It didn't bother me that Tom Sawyer knew how to drive the car. For all I know, he tinkered with it during some offscreen time.

As for Mr. Sangiacomo's statement, "So much for the unbroken string of good movies based on comic books." I think that string was broken with the Hulk. That movie was so slow, I saw people leaving the theater. I know I will not be back for that one, but I will probably be seeing the League again.

The special effects were great. I mean, Hyde looked better than the before mentioned Hulk. The sets were a marvel to look at.

All in all, I was very pleased with the movie and hope to see a sequel. But this is just my opinion.

[toolverine]

Go rent Comic Book Villains, written and directed by Robinson. Apparently his great writing in comics just does not translate to film...

Hehehe.... Comic Book Villians is a very goofy movie. I found the movie to be humorous, though. The most humorous part was the fight scene with the nail gun.:D

[mutiescum]

I must be in the obvious minority but I thought this movie was 10 times better than the snore-fest Hulk! I mean come on, you're asking for believeability in a comic book movie. Indiana Jones movies weren't that believeable but there sure as hell were fun to watch! Just my $0.02:)

[MichaelCoughlin]

Originally posted by TVerBeek

*The Adventures of Tom Sawyer took place half a century before the setting of this movie. Unless Tom had a magic portrait stashed some place, there's no way he'd be as young as he appears in this movie. This could only be his son... unless it was his grandson.

i can only guess, but i doubt that nemo, quartermain, some chick bit by dracula, etc... all had they're stories take place during the same time period either.

in a movie in which a bunch of fiction charecters all exist and come together to fight crime, complaining that one of them wasn't around during that time period is just kind of complaining.

[Hellboy15]

Actually, the timeline is pretty damn accrate, Moores research in the comic is pretty impecable. I don't know what they may have changed in the movie though, so It they did anything to screw it up, I am not aware.

[J -]

Originally posted by MichaelCoughlin
i can only guess, but i doubt that nemo, quartermain, some chick bit by dracula, etc... all had they're stories take place during the same time period either.

in a movie in which a bunch of fiction charecters all exist and come together to fight crime, complaining that one of them wasn't around during that time period is just kind of complaining.

actually, all did have their stories take place during the same time period. not at the same time, but that´s why, for example, quartermain is older than the rest (and older than he was in his books). everyone´s ages make sense in the comics.
so, yeah, the complaint about sawyer is valid IMO

[hork]

Originally posted by mutiescum
I must be in the obvious minority but I thought this movie was 10 times better than the snore-fest Hulk! I mean come on, you're asking for believeability in a comic book movie. Indiana Jones movies weren't that believeable but there sure as hell were fun to watch! Just my $0.02:)

Well, here's another vote for TLOEG being better than Hulk. I think you were actually too kind calling it a "snore-fest." It wasn't just boring, it was really, really laughably awful. At least TLOEG knew it was just a silly action movie, but Hulk had some misguided notion that it was somehow better than that, and ended up being the most pretentious summer blockbuster I've ever seen, as well as being poorly acted, written, and directed.

And Mr. Hyde looked so much better than the Hulk, even with the ridiculously large shoulders.

[mutiescum]

Originally posted by hork
And Mr. Hyde looked so much better than the Hulk, even with the ridiculously large shoulders.

Thank you!

[kossori]

Here's another vote that League was better than Hulk.
Although it didn't follow the book as much as most would like, I think it conveyed the original concept quite well.

[leez34]

I haven't seen League yet, but Hulk was a total piece of shit. Eric Bana needs acting lessons or something - he was beyond awful.

[Kid Titan]

Well, I have to admit that after reading about a million bad reviews for LOEG, I was expecting it to be the worst film ever, and it certainly was not that. I had a much better time sitting through LOEG than THE HULK. LEAGUE was silly and definitely not a classic, but it was 10 times as much fun as THE HULK. Good fun, I say...and Hyde was awesome.


.....erv.......

[punkmonkey]

I'm truly distressed by the lot of you who think LXG was so much better than the HULK! THE HULK was a tremendously good film, and much better than I expected. LXG was a nonsensically bad film, and much worse than I'd feared. For those of you who insist on tossing believability out the window, I'd caution you not to go too far. Sure, you have to suspend disbelief a bit to allow guys who shoot rays out of their eyes and such, but there's no excuse for the degree of poor storytelling and shoddy filmmaking found in LXG. The sad thing is, they'll just keep putting out films like that because you're content to swallow them with a smile. Good movies should either give a wink towards their ridiculousness or stimulate your brain a bit-- LXG did neither. I'll take HULK any day of the week, folks. I think part of the reason alot of you didn't enjoy THE HULK was that it really went over your heads. You entered the theater expecting a dumbed-down miasma of sound and fury to distract you from the fact that the story is missing, but you got a psychologically deep story nicely in line with Ang Lee's previous works. Sorry to insult some of you ( I anticipate plenty of "screw you, punkmonkey"s), but that's the way I see it, and I'm sure others will agree. At least most of the respectable movie critics are on my side.

[Suthernboy]

Glad you liked the Hulk punkmonkey. I make no apologies for disliking it. The story didn't go over my head, I just disliked it. I never made a connection with Bana's portrayal of Banner. I judge a film by the fun I had watching it. I liked LXG because I had fun. I disliked the Hulk because I did not have fun. Those are my criteria. What you call a psychologically deep story, I call a slow paced one. Just my opinion. No screw you punkmonkey in this post. You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine. That is the good thing about movies. For every movie someone hates, someone loves it. There is a plethora of comic related movies coming out of Hollywood right now. I'm just enjoying the ride.

[Aaron White]

LXG was a really bad, awful movie, but whats really sad is that it could have been so much better. i liked the hulk, it's head and shoulders above LXG.

[Kid Titan]

Originally posted by Suthernboy
Glad you liked the Hulk punkmonkey. I make no apologies for disliking it. The story didn't go over my head, I just disliked it. I never made a connection with Bana's portrayal of Banner. I judge a film by the fun I had watching it. I liked LXG because I had fun. I disliked the Hulk because I did not have fun. Those are my criteria. What you call a psychologically deep story, I call a slow paced one. Just my opinion. No screw you punkmonkey in this post. You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine. That is the good thing about movies. For every movie someone hates, someone loves it. There is a plethora of comic related movies coming out of Hollywood right now. I'm just enjoying the ride.

Very well said. While I did appreciate Ang Lee's attempt to make something more than just a throwaway summer movie, HULK just didn't work for me. The 25 minutes the Hulk was onscreen were pretty damn good, the other hour and 40 minutes were damn near intolerable. And, yes, I wish LOEG would've followed the comic more closely, actually ADAPTED it, but once I let go of the source material, I had a really good time watching the film. Hulk, no fun. LOEG, plenty o' fun.

..erv...

[Franklin Harris]

Originally posted by G Dog
Well, the string was already broken with Daredevil. That movie was bloody awful.

Beat me to it.

And I'll add that The Hulk is so superior to LXG that it is an insult to the former to mention it in the same sentence with the latter.

[JK Parkin]

While I enjoyed LXG more so than Hulk (which I found painful to watch), both lacked a sense of fun. I'm not suggesting that they should be slapstick or anything, but c'mon ... they aren't Schindler's List. Have some fun with it!

[punkmonkey]

Originally posted by Suthernboy
Glad you liked the Hulk punkmonkey. I make no apologies for disliking it. The story didn't go over my head, I just disliked it. I never made a connection with Bana's portrayal of Banner. I judge a film by the fun I had watching it. I liked LXG because I had fun. I disliked the Hulk because I did not have fun. Those are my criteria. What you call a psychologically deep story, I call a slow paced one. Just my opinion. No screw you punkmonkey in this post. You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine. That is the good thing about movies. For every movie someone hates, someone loves it. There is a plethora of comic related movies coming out of Hollywood right now. I'm just enjoying the ride.

Thanks for the polite reply, Suthernboy. I appreciate your attitude. I don't mean to sound all stuffy, like I don't enjoy having fun at the movies -- I had alot of fun watching HULK, though. There's something very cathartic about watching a big green angry guy toss tanks around like toys and leap hundreds of feet into the air. I think THE HULK delivered fun, and a good story, but I respect your position. I think I just expect more out of my movies than some of you.

[Brian Garside]

Originally posted by punkmonkey
I'm truly distressed by the lot of you who think LXG was so much better than the HULK!

SNIPPAGE

I think part of the reason alot of you didn't enjoy THE HULK was that it really went over your heads. You entered the theater expecting a dumbed-down miasma of sound and fury to distract you from the fact that the story is missing, but you got a psychologically deep story nicely in line with Ang Lee's previous works.

I don't think it would be possible for me to disagree more. I saw LXG on Friday, and I found it a totally mindless, popcorn infused, good time. It was kind of silly, there were plenty of laughable points, but overall, I enjoyed it.

As far as The Hulk, I thought the effects were terrific, The Hulk moved and behaved just as I had hoped he would...but other than that, the movie was pretty terrible, especially coming from someone like Ang Lee.

If the Hulk went over our heads, then that is Lee's fault, one of the first things we learn in film school is to play to your audience, and Lee definately did not.

What was he trying to make? A classic Greek tragedy about the sins of the father? A Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde movie? A traditional monster movie? He didn't make any of those films, and ended up making something that shared few of the strengths of the previously mentioned ideas, and all of their faults.

I could go on with a litany of things that just drove me nuts about Hulk (including the fact that there was about an hour too much needless back-story which served to do nothing but bog the movie down and mire it in muck), but I don't think it would be constructive. Suffice it to say that Ang Lee's string of terrific movies ended with Hulk. I'm sure he can recover though.

[hork]

Originally posted by punkmonkey
I think part of the reason alot of you didn't enjoy THE HULK was that it really went over your heads. You entered the theater expecting a dumbed-down miasma of sound and fury to distract you from the fact that the story is missing, but you got a psychologically deep story nicely in line with Ang Lee's previous works. Sorry to insult some of you ( I anticipate plenty of "screw you, punkmonkey"s), but that's the way I see it, and I'm sure others will agree. At least most of the respectable movie critics are on my side.

Sorry to break this to you, but it was quite the other way around, I'm afraid. I went into it expecting an intelligent and psychologically deep story, and instead got a dumbed-down miasma of sound and fury to distract me from the fact that the story was missing. It went quite a distance below my head, in fact. The acting was excruciatingly bad, the dialogue was cringe-inducing, the directing was pretentious, and the story was an over-plotted, nonsensical mess. Of course, none of Ang Lee's films can remotely be called "psychologically deep," but this was beneath even him.

It says a lot about what you consider to be "psychologically deep" when you need the opinions of "respectable movie critics" (whoever they are) to validate your own opinion.

[Jerry Fell]

Originally posted by hork
Well, here's another vote for TLOEG being better than Hulk. I think you were actually too kind calling it a "snore-fest." It wasn't just boring, it was really, really laughably awful. At least TLOEG knew it was just a silly action movie, but Hulk had some misguided notion that it was somehow better than that, and ended up being the most pretentious summer blockbuster I've ever seen, as well as being poorly acted, written, and directed.

And Mr. Hyde looked so much better than the Hulk, even with the ridiculously large shoulders.

Thank you so much for the proper words. I agree 100% but I'm just too lazy to... y' know.

J

[Act of God]

:D After the unbearable DAREDEVIL and THE HULK, LOXG looked almost as good as APOCALYPSE NOW to me!

[shazam101]

From an ol' farts POV it was a great popcorn movie! It was farfetched but really, isnt the League a bit far fetched? Hulk was good and they should have had banner say the last of his bit in english so those of us that are over 35 could catch the angry bit. All in all both have thier good and bad points and lets cruise on!

[swol]

LOEG (or LXG if you prefer) was not the comic.
We all agree on this.
I, personally enjoyed it more than Hulk.

In my mind the difference is this:
The Hulk was a serious movie which took itself too seriously.
League was a serious movie that didn't take it self too seriously.

Daredevil took itself too seriously.
Spider-Man did not.

Likewise most of the great comic movies come across better when they do not attempt to take themselves so incredibly seriously.

Superman had a wink to the audience.
Burton's Batman, for all the dark images also not a literal story of a traumatized kid who takes on near psychopathic tendencies to stop crime (dressed as a flying rodent no less).


That is not to say that the 60's Batman was good. At least not in a comic book sense. Nor were the original Punsisher, the spider-man tv series, or any incarnation of Captain America so far.

Movies need to balance the serious and fun elements.
Many film makers don't "get" that.

Personally, I will buy the League DVD when it arrives because it was a fun, B-movie. It wasn't art, but it was a fun way to kill a couple hours on a hot summer day.

[punkmonkey]

Originally posted by hork


It says a lot about what you consider to be "psychologically deep" when you need the opinions of "respectable movie critics" (whoever they are) to validate your own opinion.

I know what I like, and don't rely on others to tell me what I should and shouldn't enjoy, but am I really supposed to feel bad about having my opinion validated by professional and respected movie critics (i.e. the ones who don't sell out and label every summer effects flick "a roller-coaster ride you'll love!)?! That's a card too often played, and it really doesn't hold up here.

I am not a "professional and respected movie critic", and I do not have the background in journalism and film studies that they do, so why should I not look to their opinions for SOME basis in real cinematic value. Sure, I enjoyed the hell out of movies like the EVIL DEAD trilogy, but should I know better than to expect them to be labelled works of filmmaking genius! This is less about me believing HULK is a cinematic tour-de-force, and more about me insisting that LXG was pure unrefined crap.

To each his own, though. I might be able to see how some of you enjoyed the movie as "mindlessly fun" if I hadn't read Alan Moore's comics, but I have, so I know what this movie could have been (and, no, I didn't expect a literal translation). We all know that the book is always better than the movie, so you should see the movie first. I didn't. I did have a perverse sort of enjoyment watching it because I went with a group of guys from the local comic shop, and we absorbed it in "Mystery Science Theater 3000" mode. As a movie, though, I stick by my guns -- it stunk.

As for making the film seem somehow more worthwhile by adding the label "popcorn movie" to it ... I don't get it. If I feel bad enough for shelling out 7 bucks to see an awful movie in the first place, how does dropping an extra 4 dollars on popcorn make the experience better?;)

[mike101]

And just what was he doing anyway? It was something about blowing up a building and disrupting the chain reaction series of explosions that were going to sink Venice for some ridiculously unclear reason.


Not going to say that this movie was the best I ever saw but I got the reason behind blowing up the building and it never had anything to do with stopping a chain reaction of explosions. From what I gathered all the explosions already went off. The problem was that as every building fell it knocked down the buldings next to it and so on (think dominos). They had to completely obliterate a building in order to stop this domino effect.

[punkmonkey]

Yes, but given the amount of explosives shown underwater, there would have been buildings collapsing in every direction. They would have had to remove every building on the circumference of the outward expanding "domino effect". Even then, why would such a powerful missle strike not just continue this domino effect since the buildings were so closely spaced. It really didn't make sense.

[mike101]

Not going to argue that the solution should not have been a solution I agree with you completely. All I was trying to get at from the last post was that they were not trying to stop a chain of explosions but rather a chain of collapsing buildings.

[hork]

Originally posted by punkmonkey
I know what I like, and don't rely on others to tell me what I should and shouldn't enjoy, but am I really supposed to feel bad about having my opinion validated by professional and respected movie critics (i.e. the ones who don't sell out and label every summer effects flick "a roller-coaster ride you'll love!)?! That's a card too often played, and it really doesn't hold up here.

I could say the same about your "card." The point is, it DOESN'T validate your opinion. Opinions are just that... opinions. They can't be validated or invalidated. Studying film or (especially) journalism doesn't make someone's opinion more valid. It just makes them better at expressing why they liked or disliked it.


As for making the film seem somehow more worthwhile by adding the label "popcorn movie" to it ... I don't get it. If I feel bad enough for shelling out 7 bucks to see an awful movie in the first place, how does dropping an extra 4 dollars on popcorn make the experience better?;)

I'm not the one who said that.

[punkmonkey]

Originally posted by hork
I could say the same about your "card." The point is, it DOESN'T validate your opinion. Opinions are just that... opinions. They can't be validated or invalidated. Studying film or (especially) journalism doesn't make someone's opinion more valid. It just makes them better at expressing why they liked or disliked it.



Of course opinions can be validated or invalidated! What alternate dimension do you live in? If it is my opinion that the sky is red, well that can easily be invalidated by anyone with a pair of working eyes. Those who have a deep background in film studies and mechanics are certainly qualified to give reasons why films work or don't work, to a point. Whether or not a film is "enjoyable" by a few select people, there are still rules and guidelines of story flow, directing techniques, cinematography, lighting, pacing, etc. which can be followed or ignored to certain degrees to make the film "better" or "worse" as a cohesive work. If I'm of the opinion that the film sucked because of gaping flaws in the writing process and narrative flow, then those who have had schooling in the proper execution of film production are certainly qualified to validate or invalidate my opinion. I can easily spot and recognize bad editing in a movie, yet I'm not aware of all the ins and outs and dos and don'ts of editing. I don't know exactly how to "make it work", so to speak, but I can certainly tell when it doesn't work. When I read a review from a trained and qualified film reviewer, and they state that the movie contained "some of the worst editing" they've ever seen, then that certainly validates my opinion. I don't know where some of you get the idea that everyone's opinions are always right all of the time. Everyone is certainly free to express their opinions, but expression does not equal confirmation. Validation of opinon increases with the amount of education and knowledge one has in a certain field. I can give all the opinons I want on nuclear fission or spontaneous black hole generation, but those opinions can only be validated or invalidated by nuclear physicists or astrophysicits.

Sure, everyone's tastes will skew a bit different, but if there are certain fundamental flaws in the construction of the movie, that can't be argued, no matter your level of enjoyment.

[some_bloke]

I thought the film was better than the comic.

sorry.

I think Alan Moore spends so much time trying to be clever that he forgets to be entertaining. As if anyone really gets excited by spotting a reference to follyfoot farm. Thank goodness Hollywood is here to bail him out.

[punkmonkey]

Wow. That's a different viewpoint. I hear you, bloke, but do you really think those hidden references really get in the way of the storytelling. I mean, I know people who read the comic and never get any of the references, yet still enjoy it. The way I see it, the references are an added layer to the story -- to sort of boost the re-readability of the books, so to speak -- but I certainly don't think they get in the way of the story. Anybody else feel this way? (Not that some__bloke needs his opinion validated, that is ;) )

[Richard Werder]

Originally posted by some_bloke
I thought the film was better than the comic.

sorry.

I think Alan Moore spends so much time trying to be clever that he forgets to be entertaining. As if anyone really gets excited by spotting a reference to follyfoot farm. Thank goodness Hollywood is here to bail him out.

Is the weather in Bizarro World nice this time of year?
Just curious.

[psychoengine]

I thoroughly enjoyed LXG. It was a gazillion times better than THE HULK, and I liked it better then DAREDEVIL and SPIDER-MAN as well.

[hork]

Originally posted by punkmonkey
Of course opinions can be validated or invalidated! What alternate dimension do you live in? If it is my opinion that the sky is red, well that can easily be invalidated by anyone with a pair of working eyes. Those who have a deep background in film studies and mechanics are certainly qualified to give reasons why films work or don't work, to a point. Whether or not a film is "enjoyable" by a few select people, there are still rules and guidelines of story flow, directing techniques, cinematography, lighting, pacing, etc. which can be followed or ignored to certain degrees to make the film "better" or "worse" as a cohesive work. If I'm of the opinion that the film sucked because of gaping flaws in the writing process and narrative flow, then those who have had schooling in the proper execution of film production are certainly qualified to validate or invalidate my opinion. I can easily spot and recognize bad editing in a movie, yet I'm not aware of all the ins and outs and dos and don'ts of editing. I don't know exactly how to "make it work", so to speak, but I can certainly tell when it doesn't work. When I read a review from a trained and qualified film reviewer, and they state that the movie contained "some of the worst editing" they've ever seen, then that certainly validates my opinion. I don't know where some of you get the idea that everyone's opinions are always right all of the time. Everyone is certainly free to express their opinions, but expression does not equal confirmation. Validation of opinon increases with the amount of education and knowledge one has in a certain field. I can give all the opinons I want on nuclear fission or spontaneous black hole generation, but those opinions can only be validated or invalidated by nuclear physicists or astrophysicits.

Sure, everyone's tastes will skew a bit different, but if there are certain fundamental flaws in the construction of the movie, that can't be argued, no matter your level of enjoyment.

You're mistaking beliefs for opinions. If someone says the sky is red, that would be a belief, not an opinion. An opinion has to do with likes and dislikes and subjective views, not objective facts.

Okay, let's see, I graduated from NYU's film school and have been in the movie business for seven years, so by your argument I guess my opinion is more valid than yours. Therefore, I hereby invalidate your opinion.

However, since I have studied film, I can tell you that you don't need to study film to be able to form a valid opinion about cinematography or editing. You either like it or you don't.

[punkmonkey]

Originally posted by hork
You're mistaking beliefs for opinions. If someone says the sky is red, that would be a belief, not an opinion. An opinion has to do with likes and dislikes and subjective views, not objective facts.

Okay, let's see, I graduated from NYU's film school and have been in the movie business for seven years, so by your argument I guess my opinion is more valid than yours. Therefore, I hereby invalidate your opinion.

However, since I have studied film, I can tell you that you don't need to study film to be able to form a valid opinion about cinematography or editing. You either like it or you don't.

Oh yeah? Well, my dad can beat up your dad, and that's not my opinion, that's FACT!! Your mistake, hork. Besides, you have to fill out the proper paperwork to officially invalidate my opinion. Belief is simply a synonym for opinion -- the implication is simply on a deeper conviction, not necessarily based in any form of proof. An opinion can be a formal expert assessment -- hence getting a "second opinion" in the medical field. Doesn't mean it's always correct (as is obvious in your case), but it does hold some validity depending on the level of expertise and knowledge. Just so you know, graduating from film school doesn't make you an expert in film studies -- there are plenty of folks out there in the film business (as in any business) who, essentially, have no business in the business, if you get my drift. Of course you need to have some film study or knowledge to form a valid opinion about film mechanics. The greater your knowledge (degrees and diplomas do not necessarily imply a greater level of smarts here -- I know a fellow who graduated with a degree in fine art painting who hasn't painted dick in the 5 years since he graduated and has probably forgotten everything he knew about it), the more valid your opinion. I know plenty about basic cinematography, therefore, when I see a poorly lined up shot, or somesuch, my opinion that the director didn't follow simple framing or staging techniques is more valid than, say, my wife's, who knows little of such things. She might say that she saw nothing wrong with the shot, when, in fact, there was plenty wrong with it that any professional director worth his salt would have corrected. Often the subject matter and style of filmmaking will have a bearing on all of this, but we won't get into that now.
The best thing you can do here is just give in and admit that LXG stunk to high heaven. It's really your only option here, and there's no sense arguing this further. You've fought the good fight, but it's time to hang up the hat and stop defending this poorly produced piece of cinematic shame.;)
Nice try, though!

[punkmonkey]

Originally posted by hork
You're mistaking beliefs for opinions. If someone says the sky is red, that would be a belief, not an opinion. An opinion has to do with likes and dislikes and subjective views, not objective facts.

Okay, let's see, I graduated from NYU's film school and have been in the movie business for seven years, so by your argument I guess my opinion is more valid than yours. Therefore, I hereby invalidate your opinion.

However, since I have studied film, I can tell you that you don't need to study film to be able to form a valid opinion about cinematography or editing. You either like it or you don't.

Oh yeah? Well, my dad can beat up your dad, and that's not my opinion, that's FACT!! Your mistake, hork. Besides, you have to fill out the proper paperwork to officially invalidate my opinion. Belief is simply a synonym for opinion -- the implication is simply on a deeper conviction, not necessarily based in any form of proof. An opinion can be a formal expert assessment -- hence getting a "second opinion" in the medical field. Doesn't mean it's always correct (as is obvious in your case), but it does hold some validity depending on the level of expertise and knowledge. Just so you know, graduating from film school doesn't make you an expert in film studies -- there are plenty of folks out there in the film business (as in any business) who, essentially, have no business in the business, if you get my drift. Of course you need to have some film study or knowledge to form a valid opinion about film mechanics. The greater your knowledge (degrees and diplomas do not necessarily imply a greater level of smarts here -- I know a fellow who graduated with a degree in fine art painting who hasn't painted dick in the 5 years since he graduated and has probably forgotten everything he knew about it), the more valid your opinion. I know plenty about basic cinematography, therefore, when I see a poorly lined up shot, or somesuch, my opinion that the director didn't follow simple framing or staging techniques is more valid than, say, my wife's, who knows little of such things. She might say that she saw nothing wrong with the shot, when, in fact, there was plenty wrong with it that any professional director worth his salt would have corrected. Often the subject matter and style of filmmaking will have a bearing on all of this, but we won't get into that now.
The best thing you can do here is just give in and admit that LXG stunk to high heaven. It's really your only option here, and there's no sense arguing this further. You've fought the good fight, but it's time to hang up the hat and stop defending this poorly produced piece of cinematic shame.;)
Nice try, though!

[hork]

Originally posted by punkmonkey
Oh yeah? Well, my dad can beat up your dad, and that's not my opinion, that's FACT!! Your mistake, hork. Besides, you have to fill out the proper paperwork to officially invalidate my opinion. Belief is simply a synonym for opinion -- the implication is simply on a deeper conviction, not necessarily based in any form of proof. An opinion can be a formal expert assessment -- hence getting a "second opinion" in the medical field. Doesn't mean it's always correct (as is obvious in your case), but it does hold some validity depending on the level of expertise and knowledge. Just so you know, graduating from film school doesn't make you an expert in film studies -- there are plenty of folks out there in the film business (as in any business) who, essentially, have no business in the business, if you get my drift. Of course you need to have some film study or knowledge to form a valid opinion about film mechanics. The greater your knowledge (degrees and diplomas do not necessarily imply a greater level of smarts here -- I know a fellow who graduated with a degree in fine art painting who hasn't painted dick in the 5 years since he graduated and has probably forgotten everything he knew about it), the more valid your opinion. I know plenty about basic cinematography, therefore, when I see a poorly lined up shot, or somesuch, my opinion that the director didn't follow simple framing or staging techniques is more valid than, say, my wife's, who knows little of such things. She might say that she saw nothing wrong with the shot, when, in fact, there was plenty wrong with it that any professional director worth his salt would have corrected. Often the subject matter and style of filmmaking will have a bearing on all of this, but we won't get into that now.
The best thing you can do here is just give in and admit that LXG stunk to high heaven. It's really your only option here, and there's no sense arguing this further. You've fought the good fight, but it's time to hang up the hat and stop defending this poorly produced piece of cinematic shame.;)
Nice try, though!

Actually, I never defended it. This argument started because you were defending Hulk. All I said was that League was much better than the execrable Hulk, which it is. But I'm tired of arguing with you, because your arguments make no sense and you keep contradicting yourself.

[punkmonkey]

Originally posted by hork
Actually, I never defended it. This argument started because you were defending Hulk. All I said was that League was much better than the execrable Hulk, which it is. But I'm tired of arguing with you, because your arguments make no sense and you keep contradicting yourself.

ZZZZZZZZZZ..... Hmm? What? Oh, I'm sorry -- I dozed off there. Let's see... hmm hmm "defending", blah blah "execrable", dumdedum "contradicting" -- sure, guy -- whatever helps you sleep at night. I believe you meant to say, "why, yes, Punkmonkey, you are right. I apologize, and I now see the error of my ways. Thank you for showing me the light!"
G'night!
:D

[hork]

Originally posted by punkmonkey
ZZZZZZZZZZ..... Hmm? What? Oh, I'm sorry -- I dozed off there. Let's see... hmm hmm "defending", blah blah "execrable", dumdedum "contradicting" -- sure, guy -- whatever helps you sleep at night. I believe you meant to say, "why, yes, Punkmonkey, you are right. I apologize, and I now see the error of my ways. Thank you for showing me the light!"
G'night!
:D

Do you often end arguments this way? If so, your wife deserves some sort of medal or Nobel Prize for not having killed you by now.

[rhiggatwat]

i have to admit i really enjoyed this movie.

it is obviously NOT the alan moore book, as everyone has pointed out. but it was certainly fun. i thought it was great visually, very colourful and everything looked perfect. i enjoyed dorian grey in the story, and tom sawyer being in the movie didnt make me sick they way it did when i first heard about it.

its obvious that this is not a movie you go to see for a great academy award winning plot. its just not that. but the comic booky-elements were all very cool, and it was fun for people who enjoy seeing all of the characters they read about throughout childhood, even in such a limited one dimensional capacity. i was not expecting a ton of character development with so many characters. i was expecting a colourful comic book movie with alot of interesting things to look at and some sillyness to go along. and the movie delivered.

i really enjoyed mina and dorian.

and add me to the list of people who thought that hyde looked way better than the hulk.

[punkmonkey]

Originally posted by hork
Do you often end arguments this way? If so, your wife deserves some sort of medal or Nobel Prize for not having killed you by now.

Hey, I thought you were done, here!

Seriously, Hork, I owe you an apology -- I MAY have been a bit obnoxious and belligerent in my arguments. I still think all of you who enjoyed LXG are idiots (kidding, kidding -- of course all our opinions are valid), but that's just me. I guess my standards are set too high for today's entertainment norms. Oh, by the way, though, a few of you have said that you thought Hyde's effects looked way better than the Hulk, to which I must reply, "were you stoned when you saw this movie?" Hyde was wearing a ludicrous foam rubber suit and you could clearly see the creases and folds when he moved! The Hulk was computer generated and looked as close to real as you can get with that sort of thing (which turned out much better than I thought it would). I think the reason most of you think the Hulk looked "fake" was because a giant bright green man stands out as very out of the ordinary, even though it was animated and rendered with super results. I mean, did you see the part when Hyde was supposed to pull down the lever in the Nautilis? His rubber fingers were not gripping the lever (cause the actor's fingers weren't even in the rubber hands), and you could see them stretching as he pulled!
Oh, well -- I admit, there was something refreshing about seeing an effect like that pulled off fairly well without computer animation, but to say that it looked BETTER than the Hulk seems silly to me.
;)

[meverat]

Originally posted by G Dog
Well, the string was already broken with Daredevil. That movie was bloody awful.

I'll third that notion.

[Doctor Defiance]

Alright,

Let me inject another angle into this Hulk Vs. LXG argument... er, discussion...

Film makers look at comics and film as vastly different mediums and therefore somehow believe that the stories that came to life in comic form must somehow be radically "re-tooleld" to fit the film mold... how utterly ludicrous...

Comics and film are about as close as two medium can be. Especially now with the advent of CGI and other technologies that allow film to actually compete with comics on an imaginary level.

So that begs the question... did the film makers in question here ever read an LXG or Hulk comic?? Because these films don't show half the imagination, power and story telling ability of the comics they were derived from.

Let's think about the chain of events which brought these films to the screen...

Okay, sure, we all know that Hollywood is trolling comics for every available idea... and with the Hulk and LOEG they managed to choose two terrific contenders for film adaption.

They chose LOEG because of its chemistry and its splendid story... and then they disregarded the critical elements of story and character... how idiotic.

The "high concept" Hollywood yucks will platter on about the "idea" being the critical element... what bullshit. The idea's easy! Here it is... a group of late 19th century literary characters form a "super" team to fight a global threat.
Great idea... now YOU go come up with a fantastic story... that part's not so easy. But guess what! You're in luck! You've hit the jackpot mister Hollywood film maker because a guy named Alan Moore, who's written stuff that's going to be read by folks a hundred years from now has done it for you! You've even bought the rights to the book already! What? What's that you say? Not "good" enough for film? You have to change the characters... and the story??

Alan Moore is one smart bastard, because he just takes the big fat check and smiles and keeps on writing his stories... what we saw on screen was not the League of Extraordinary Gentelmen... it was merely it's inbred, genetically challenged stepchild.

As for the Hulk... I'd agree with quite a few posters here that the only time it worked was once the Hulk showed up. If Ang had only bothered to read some of the better Hulk material, maybe there'd have been a story worth what they spent on CGI. Again, the film makers have literally 40 years plus of some of the most imaginative story telling EVER at their disposal, and they choose to disregard it. There's a reason the Hulk character has survived the test of time, some basic phsychological desire for all of us to be able to Hulk out when necessary... too bad they couldn't figure it out so they could have made a decent movie.

Well, I'm done blabbin'

Doc