The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen

I looked at the cast list (Sean Connery included) and the cast list included such notables as the Invisable Man, Dr. Jekyll/Mr.Hyde, Mina Harker (from Dracula), Tom Sawyer, Dorian Grey, Captain Nemo, and Alan Quartermain (one of the inspirations for Indiana Jones). I thought that was so cool that I bought th book (which turned out to be a comic book), and if its half as cool as the original story, it'll be a classic. Does anyone else have any opinions of the production?

Check out the link for more:
http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/details/loeg.html

__________________
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" - Howard Beale

Apparently the screenplay does not follow the plotline of the original comic book (Professor Moriarity gaining the anti-gravity device to rule the skies). However, the collection of the extraordinary gentlemen should be similar (though I think they'll probably soften the Invisible Man's introduction a bit), and the concept is the same. It's just the adventure itself that is wildly different.



For those of you unfamiliar with The League of Extraordinay Gentlemen, it's a sort of 19th Century Justice League made up of characters from that period's literature, such as Captain Nemo, The Invisible Man, Allan Quartermain and Dr. Jeckyll, and of course presupposing that they are real and not simply literary creations. And these characters aren't in their "prime" as it were, but aged or severly mad. This unlikely group begrudgingly comes together to fight overwhelming evil in the name of Mother England. Adventures ensue.


I love Connery of course, but he would have been better physically as Nemo. Quartermain as written in the comics is a strung-out Opium addict and only seems to weigh about 90-pounds soaking wet. I would have cast Peter O'Toole myself, or even better Richard Harris before he passed. But Connery will do splendily, I'm sure, it's just a different concept of the character.





Ang Lee's The Hulk is the only big-budget summer adventure I'm looking more forward to than The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I wasn't a huge fan of Stephen Norrington's Blade, except for the well-staged action sequences and crisp look to the film. So perhaps with a smarter script (which hopefully this is, unlike the disappointing Alan Moore adaptation From Hell), his visuals will click with the material and the movie will be a heaping load of fun.

I hope the darkness and wit has been retained. It'd be a crying shame if this was turned into a simple kiddie vehicle to sell popcorn and action figures, nothing more than a dumbed-down FX-fest like the recent Mummy flicks. Please, oh please, let it be more.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Well, give some credit to the marketers behind this flick for seemingly scrapping an awful idea. After many a snicker proceeded the "LXG: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" voiceover during some early trailers, it seems they've taken to calling it simply "The League" in the new spots for the film. I imagine this was done hastily, as they don't even bring a title screen up anymore...because any logo/graphic already finished wouldn't match the new title, which is infinitely better, IMO.

Perhaps they could've gotten away with The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, though even that sounds a tad goofy. "LXG," however, is retarded, to put it as kindly as possible. Apparently they didn't get the memo. If they had, they'd have known that:

1 - artificially shortening words so that they begin with "X" (Xtreme, Xciting, Xfoliating, x cetera) was an intriguing idea at first, but has run its course.

2 - turning something into an acronym screams "please think I'm cool!" Case in point: AFV. Or NKTB. Acronymization is the last refuge of a dorky product.

Or ID4 or T3 or X2 or AOL or M&Ms....

I don't really care too much about the LXG abbreviation, as long as they keep the full title The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Market it as The League or League or Luh for all I care, just don't fu*k with the wonderful title Alan Moore came up with in the first place. It perfectly suits the material.

ID4, yes...but I happen to like the rest, and here's why: we were introduced to most of them right off the bat, which is a far cry from taking a previously existing product and trying to invent a hip moniker for it. Such efforts feel forced, and ultimately are counterproductive, IMO (no pun intended).

T3 is good because it simply succeeds T2, and T2 is good in part because it was touted early enough to become synonymous with the film. I'd also venture to claim that acronyms like T2 or AOL make sense, and "link" well in the minds of those who hear them to the full titles/names they represent. Not so with ID4 or LXG, in part because there's no 4 in the title of the former, and no X-word in the name of the latter.

Of course, some of them just sound dumb for no particular reason, too.

A few updates on the plot: (the people who care and read this thread probobly already know this stuff, but oh well, I'll post it anyway) The Invisible Man has been altered from his original psychotic mad scientist character to a thief who steals the invisibility formula from Griffin (the insane scientist). This is a let down to me, becuase the original Griffin was sort of a villian inside of the team type guy (such as Maggot (Telly Savalas) in the Dirty Dozen, which is the closest example I can think of). He also always was the coolest IMO and had the best lines. Oh well. (The original character, Griffin was lost in a court battle). Also almost the entire original plot has been dropped. No Fu Manchu a.k.a. The Doctor, no Moriarty, and no (to my knowlege) Champoin Bond.

The movie still shows great promise though, (and the trailer before X2 was awesome!!!!). Maybe if it does well enough they can use the original plot in a sequel.

My biggest fear is that the movie will fail and will not find a big enough crowd to watch it. The LXG didn't do a great job of promoting. Oh well...we'll just have to wait and see....I hope it does well.....

Any thoughts on any of this?

And to Holden: You seem familiar with the world of comics. Have you read any of Moore's other books, such as Top Ten or Watchmen?

In my mind, The Watchmen is second only to Frank Miller's peerless The Dark Knight Returns as the best graphic novels ever written in English. I soooo love The Watchmen. I have near-mint first editions of the series. Jealous? I'm kind of glad it hasn't been turned into a movie yet, as the material is a bit too sprawling and dark to be adapted at all well by Hollywood and with a decent budget. Terry Gilliam was attached to the project for years, and eventaully passed because he felt it couldn't be translated into a two-hour or so running time and do the material justice - I do love that man. There's still rumbilngs now and then that someone or another will mount it as a feature film, but I'd be happier if it remained in its pure state forever. Unless HBO or somebody would pay for a kick-ass six-hour version of the story as a mini-series. I'd get Gilliam for that endeavor in a heartbeat.




I thought The Hughes Bros.' From Hell movie was a huge let-down and a travesty, but it wasn't one of my favorite Moore books to begin with. I think V for Vendetta runs circles around From Hell. I haven't read any of the more recent Moore works, excepting The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I did love his stint doing Miracleman as well, back in the day.

But basically, I haven't kept up with comics at all in the past ten years or so. I was REALLY into them for ten years before that, but kind of outgrew 'em, I guess.


Anyway, all the changes in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen the movie do indeed trouble me. It's just a shame. The original idea and story were so clever and fun, I wish they could have found financing that would have allowed them to keep it in tact. But, in spite of the major altering, it could still wind up being a good movie. Maybe. We'll have to wait a couple more months and see. I'm hoping against hope, but I do have a bad feeling about it at this point. Connery or not.

I know what you mean.

Check out Top Ten. I really recommend this title. It is difficult to describle, but it chronicles about two weeks in the lives of superhero cops. Really cool. It is available in two different collections, books 1 and 2. Check 'em out.

Has anyone else seen the preview? (I'm sure you have). This might actually be as good, (or almost), as I'm hoping it'll be.

What character does Sean Connery play?

He seems a bit old for the role to me, unless he is playing a known character that is suppose to be old.

I have never read the comic, so I don't know much about it.

__________________
What Is Real!?
myOSP: My Open Source Project

Connery is playing Allan Quatermain...

__________________

Sean Connery plays the famous adventurer/hunter Allan Quatermain. The trailer can be seen here.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

We had ESP...

Sean Connery plays Victorian-era adventurer Allan Quatermain, an 18th Century literary forerunner to, and direct inspiration for, Indiana Jones. There were a couple novels by H. Rider Haggard detailing the exploits of Quartermain: King Solomon's Mines (1885) and Alan Quartermain (1887), loosely based on Haggard's own experiences in Africa, very successful in their day.



After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) and Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom (1984), they tried to capitalize and bring Quartermain to a new generation with the simultaneously-filmed mid-budget projects King Solomon's Mines (1985) and Allan Quartermain & the Lost City of Gold (1987), starring Richard Chamberlain (The Three Musketeers, "The Thorn Birds", "Shogun") as Quatermain, a pre-fame Sharon Stone, and James Earl Jones. They even managed to wrangle John Rhys-Davies, Sallah in Raiders and now Gimli in The Lord of the Rings, into the cast. Herbert Lom (The Pink Panther films) and Henry Silva (The Manchurian Candidate, Sharky's Machine) camp it up as the baddies. Both movies were resounding duds with audiences and critics alike, the second only released because it was already in the can.

King Solomon's Mines had been made twice before by Hollywood: in 1950 starring Stewart Granger & Deborah Kerr, and 1937 with Cedric Hardwicke and Paul Robeson.


If you'd bother to actually read through this thread, I explaind that all the characters in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen are from literature presupposed as real, but all either old, mad or otherwise deficient for a bunch of crimefighting superheroes. So yes, Connery is very much supposed to be an elder version of the heroic Quartermain.

Cait...

Then Holden comes along...we both suck.

is his character suppose to be that old?

Read this exceptional review by Holden...THAT IS ONLY 1 PAGE BEFORE THIS!!! Sheesh Graphic...

lol

I don't have the attention span to real long posts.

so they are not suppose to be in top physical conditoin would have done.

thx

YES, for the third fu*king time, the character is supposed to be that old. You've got the reading comprehension skills of a third grader...or me, after three or four vodkas.

If you can't be bothered to read posts more than a sentence or two long, then don't bother contributing stupid questions to them either.


urwelkum