Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bree · 07-11-2003, 12:34 PM

Well? How was it? Good? Bad? Ugly? Peta Wilson = hot, or so-so (corset, mmm)? Close to the book? Not even close?

I'm dying to know.

Jesse · 07-11-2003, 01:14 PM

Just got back from it. I had very low expectations, but with that in mind, I found it pretty entertaining. Basically, you've got to put the book totally out of your mind and just appreciate it on its own terms as a sort of steampunk action movie featuring some famous 19th century characters. The actors playing the characters were all pretty good and the movie did a decent job of giving them all distinct personalities...like the first X-men, this is a movie that has to introduce a whole bunch of heroes at once and make them interesting, which is tough. The dialogue wasn't too modern-sounding, which was something I was worried about. The sets were cool...the plot was muddled but not horrible...one of the worst parts was the action sequences themselves, which were filmed and edited pretty badly. The CG effects were also pretty cheap-looking...fortunately they didn't make Mr. Hyde a CG character, which judging by the one CG character they did have would have looked terrible.

Definitely not a great movie, but like I said, I was entertained.

tronvillain · 07-11-2003, 02:43 PM

I enjoyed it and it had a few nice additions, but it bore almost no resemblance to the book. It would have been nice if they had retained a few more of the elements of the book, such as Jekyl mentioned that Hyde was once smaller than he was, the invisible man being the original professor rather than a thief, Jekyl/Hyde no longer requiring the formula, and so on. The interesting thing is that the "evil" Hyde looked more like the comic book character than the actual Hyde. I give it a 7.7/10

Jesse · 07-11-2003, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain
It would have been nice if they had retained a few more of the elements of the book, such as Jekyl mentioned that Hyde was once smaller than he was, the invisible man being the original professor rather than a thief

I've heard there were actually legal worries about using the original invisible man in the movie--the character himself is in the public domain, but some of the movie incarnations of him are not, so if the people who own the rights to a previous invisible man movie could make a case that the LXG invisible man was using elements from their movie that weren't in the book, they could sue them.

Anyway, in the original H.G. Wells story the invisible man was killed at the end, so it was reasonable for him to be a thief who stole the formula instead of the original professor, even if it wasn't faithful to the comic.

Pierre Bezukhov · 07-11-2003, 03:04 PM

Both Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) and Michael Wilmington (Chicago Tribune) wrote that the person in charge of bringing the heroes together was named "M" in hommage to the James Bond movies, but wasn't the person in the graphic novel called "Mr. M" (for Moriarty)? Did they call him "M" or "Mr. M" in the movie? I think Roger Ebert is going to get a lot of mail over this.

Jesse · 07-11-2003, 03:16 PM

(spoilers for the graphic novel below)

Quote:

Originally posted by Pierre Bezukhov
Both Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) and Michael Wilmington (Chicago Tribune) wrote that the person in charge of bringing the heroes together was named "M" in hommage to the James Bond movies, but wasn't the person in the graphic novel called "Mr. M" (for Moriarty)? Did they call him "M" or "Mr. M" in the movie? I think Roger Ebert is going to get a lot of mail over this.

No, it was just "M" in the graphic novel too--Moore was probably suggesting he was a predecessor to James Bond's "M", since the League's contact with M was through a guy named "Campion Bond". Miss Murray originally guessed "M" was Mycroft Holmes, brother of Sherlock, although as you say she turned out to be wrong.

See the first few entries in the Notes on League of Extraordinary Gentlemen #1, where they discuss both Campion and M.

tronvillain · 07-11-2003, 03:19 PM

Jesse:

Quote:

Anyway, in the original H.G. Wells story the invisible man was killed at the end, so it was reasonable for him to be a thief who stole the formula instead of the original professor, even if it wasn't faithful to the comic.

I know he was, but the graphic novel takes the position that it was the professor's test subject rather than the professor himself who was killed at the end of the book. I doubt they were all that worried about being sued though.

Jesse · 07-11-2003, 03:46 PM

tronvillain:
Jesse:

I know he was, but the graphic novel takes the position that it was the professor's test subject rather than the professor himself who was killed at the end of the book.

I know, I'm just saying that the solution in the movie is equally faithful to the H.G. Wells story even if it's not faithful to the comic.

tronvillain:
I doubt they were all that worried about being sued though.

That was the story I heard on a thread on another board which I can't find right now...this page says:

Quote:

While the character of the Invisible Man is present, his name has been changed from Hawley Griffin to Rodney Skinner due to certain rights issues.

This one says:

Quote:

Also, Dr. Hawley Griffin aka The Invisible Man, has been changed to Rodney Skinner due to copyright issues with the H.G. Wells estate.

Since the story itself must be in the public domain by now, it makes sense that this would have something to do with movie rights.

This page goes into a little more detail:

Quote:

The other members of this League include: Quartermain (Connery); Mina Harker (possibly Saffron Burrows), who uses her married name in this draft and serves as the team's scientist; Captain Nemo; Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde; and Rodney Skinner, a "gentleman thief" turned invisible man. So why isn't "Hawley Griffin" the Invisible Man? IGN FilmForce's Extraordinary source has advised me that the rights to the H.G. Wells character are still held by another studio so the filmmakers aren't allowed to use him. In other words, it's okay for the filmmakers to use an invisible man just not the invisible man. (Alan Moore apparently was able to skirt this issue.)

EDIT: Found the thread where I originally read it was over fear of lawsuits--it's this thread on rec.arts.comics.misc. According to one poster:

Quote:

As I understand it, the only enforcement mechanism for copyright is a lawsuit, so any infringement has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. What I took from Lawrence's reply is that the LOEG filmmakers could have used Hawley Griffin, but they'd leave themselves open to being sued by whoever owns the Claude Rains film (would it still be Universal?). They might indeed defend themselves successfully, but they'd have to go to all that trouble. By changing the name of Wells's character, they avoid the annoyance.

Corwin · 07-11-2003, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Mina Harker (possibly Saffron Burrows),

Back up the truck.

Didn't she die? (In the book....)

It's been ages since I read it.... so I don't remember for sure, but I was SURE Harker was the one that was turned....

Jesse · 07-11-2003, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin
Back up the truck.

Didn't she die? (In the book....)

It's been ages since I read it.... so I don't remember for sure, but I was SURE Harker was the one that was turned....

According to the LoEG notes:

Quote:

"Wilhelmina Murray" is in fact Mina Harker, of Bram Stoker's Dracula. "Murray," in the novel, was Mina Harker's maiden name, and "Mina" is short for Wilhelmina. In Dracula Mina Harker was the wife of Jonathan Harker, the putative protagonist for the novel; they, along with Dr. van Helsing, came into conflict with the vampire, and eventually triumphed, although not before Mina was bitten by Dracula and forced to drink his blood. At the end of the novel, however, she was again human, and with Jonathan and their son seemed to be a family. Clearly something happened between then (1897) and the current time to cause Mina to divorce Jonathan.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-11-2003, 12:34 PM	#1
Bree Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Twin Cities, USA Posts: 3,197	LXG - opens Friday, July 11 Well? How was it? Good? Bad? Ugly? Peta Wilson = hot, or so-so (corset, mmm)? Close to the book? Not even close? I'm dying to know.

07-11-2003, 01:14 PM	#2
Jesse Moderator - Science Discussions Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Providence, RI, USA Posts: 9,908	Just got back from it. I had very low expectations, but with that in mind, I found it pretty entertaining. Basically, you've got to put the book totally out of your mind and just appreciate it on its own terms as a sort of steampunk action movie featuring some famous 19th century characters. The actors playing the characters were all pretty good and the movie did a decent job of giving them all distinct personalities...like the first X-men, this is a movie that has to introduce a whole bunch of heroes at once and make them interesting, which is tough. The dialogue wasn't too modern-sounding, which was something I was worried about. The sets were cool...the plot was muddled but not horrible...one of the worst parts was the action sequences themselves, which were filmed and edited pretty badly. The CG effects were also pretty cheap-looking...fortunately they didn't make Mr. Hyde a CG character, which judging by the one CG character they did have would have looked terrible. Definitely not a great movie, but like I said, I was entertained.

07-11-2003, 02:43 PM	#3
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	I enjoyed it and it had a few nice additions, but it bore almost no resemblance to the book. It would have been nice if they had retained a few more of the elements of the book, such as Jekyl mentioned that Hyde was once smaller than he was, the invisible man being the original professor rather than a thief, Jekyl/Hyde no longer requiring the formula, and so on. The interesting thing is that the "evil" Hyde looked more like the comic book character than the actual Hyde. I give it a 7.7/10

07-11-2003, 03:04 PM	#5
Pierre Bezukhov Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 882	Both Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) and Michael Wilmington (Chicago Tribune) wrote that the person in charge of bringing the heroes together was named "M" in hommage to the James Bond movies, but wasn't the person in the graphic novel called "Mr. M" (for Moriarty)? Did they call him "M" or "Mr. M" in the movie? I think Roger Ebert is going to get a lot of mail over this.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.