The League of Extrordinary Gentlemen

Cal Wright · Post by **Cal Wright** » 2003-06-29 10:09pm

Senior was a dried up ol coot in the movie. Junior was the adventurer extrodinaire. Btw is the movie out yet? I see the same damn preview over and over with the lame ass line 'That was naughty'. I want to see it really bad, but i have not seen a release date.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-06-29 10:24pm

Cal Wright wrote:Senior was a dried up ol coot in the movie.

He still had a couple moves.

Junior was the adventurer extrodinaire.

Bah. My way would have been cooler. Both Connery.

Btw is the movie out yet? I see the same damn preview over and over with the lame ass line 'That was naughty'. I want to see it really bad, but i have not seen a release date.

Nope. July 11.

Joe Momma · Post by **Joe Momma** » 2003-06-30 04:03pm

Lonestar wrote:
BlackWarMewtwo wrote: I don't remember the exact line either, but it was in volume 2 book 5, right after he raped and killed Griffin.

.
No, he said that in Volume 1 too.

You're both right. He made the initial statement in volume one and expanded on it (no pun intended) in volume two. IN the latter, he explained that because he was effectively Jekyll without restraint that he was becoming the more dominant of the two. This is why Hyde has been getting larger and why he appears more frequently now.

-- Joe Momma

Mark S · Post by **Mark S** » 2003-06-30 06:13pm

In the book Hyde becomes so dominant that he takes over without aid and Jekyll needs to take the serum to turn back into himself. And it doesn't always work. I'll buy him getting larger with more activity. That fits in with the original story premise. The question now is, how did he come back from the dead?

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-06-30 06:47pm

Mark S wrote:In the book Hyde becomes so dominant that he takes over without aid and Jekyll needs to take the serum to turn back into himself. And it doesn't always work. I'll buy him getting larger with more activity. That fits in with the original story premise. The question now is, how did he come back from the dead?

He never died, a lot of the characters died in their original stories yet their deaths were merely faked (at least from the comic’s perspective).

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-07-01 01:53am

TheDarkling wrote: He never died, a lot of the characters died in their original stories yet their deaths were merely faked (at least from the comic’s perspective).

Do you think the movie will show what the Invisible Man has been up to since the end of his book?

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-07-01 02:12am

Tsyroc wrote:
TheDarkling wrote: He never died, a lot of the characters died in their original stories yet their deaths were merely faked (at least from the comic’s perspective).
Do you think the movie will show what the Invisible Man has been up to since the end of his book?

Looking at the rating I very much doubt it, not to mention that it will probably be to risky to alienate the audience by showing the true level of evil/amorality/insanity etc inherent in the leagues "good guys" will, this has been confirmed by the reviews I have read so far although they still see the film as good just not having a great resemblance to Moore's work.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-07-01 02:17am

TheDarkling wrote: Looking at the rating I very much doubt it, not to mention that it will probably be to risky to alienate the audience by showing the true level of evil/amorality/insanity etc inherent in the leagues "good guys" will, this has been confirmed by the reviews I have read so far although they still see the film as good just not having a great resemblance to Moore's work.

I didn't think they would but it's somewhat amusing imagining what would happen if they had.

I saw a televison preview for the movie yesterday saying it was coming out July 16th, I think. What was particullarly interesting was that it still said that it had not been rated. I hope that doesn't mean they are playing around with the MPA trying to get that last minute PG-13 rating.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-07-01 10:25am

Tsyroc wrote:
TheDarkling wrote: Looking at the rating I very much doubt it, not to mention that it will probably be to risky to alienate the audience by showing the true level of evil/amorality/insanity etc inherent in the leagues "good guys" will, this has been confirmed by the reviews I have read so far although they still see the film as good just not having a great resemblance to Moore's work.
I didn't think they would but it's somewhat amusing imagining what would happen if they had.

I saw a televison preview for the movie yesterday saying it was coming out July 16th, I think. What was particullarly interesting was that it still said that it had not been rated. I hope that doesn't mean they are playing around with the MPA trying to get that last minute PG-13 rating.

July 11th in the US actually. And it is odd that it still doesn't seem to have a rating yet.

Baron Mordo · Post by **Baron Mordo** » 2003-07-01 11:54am

So why wasn't Frankenstein or his monster included in this gang?

Dizzy D · Post by **Dizzy D** » 2003-07-01 12:06pm

Baron Mordo wrote:So why wasn't Frankenstein or his monster included in this gang?

Because it is a British operation. All members are part of the British Empire. (for comic-book, not for movie, since they had to include that *&^% Sawyer)

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-07-01 01:59pm

Baron Mordo wrote:So why wasn't Frankenstein or his monster included in this gang?

For the movie it may be because they already have a similar strong montrosity in Hyde. So no reason to further butcher the series by adding in a new character.

Dizzy D · Post by **Dizzy D** » 2003-07-01 02:31pm

And after doing some back research: Frankenstein was written in 1816 and took place around 1800-1810. The League-members are all in 1890-1900, nearly a hundred years later. (Moore was rather consistent in dates and ages of his League members)

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-07-01 02:46pm

Dizzy D wrote:
Baron Mordo wrote:So why wasn't Frankenstein or his monster included in this gang?
Because it is a British operation. All members are part of the British Empire. (for comic-book, not for movie, since they had to include that *&^% Sawyer)

I really didn't know France was part of the British empire, as Nemo was written by Verne.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-07-01 03:13pm

Dizzy D wrote:And after doing some back research: Frankenstein was written in 1816 and took place around 1800-1810. The League-members are all in 1890-1900, nearly a hundred years later. (Moore was rather consistent in dates and ages of his League members)

For the movie. Tom Sawyer was before those dates too.

Dizzy D · Post by **Dizzy D** » 2003-07-01 03:17pm

SyntaxVorlon wrote:
Dizzy D wrote:
Baron Mordo wrote:So why wasn't Frankenstein or his monster included in this gang?
Because it is a British operation. All members are part of the British Empire. (for comic-book, not for movie, since they had to include that *&^% Sawyer)
I really didn't know France was part of the British empire, as Nemo was written by Verne.

Nemo himself is in Indian, India was part of the British empire.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-07-01 07:53pm

Dizzy D wrote:
Baron Mordo wrote:So why wasn't Frankenstein or his monster included in this gang?
Because it is a British operation. All members are part of the British Empire. (for comic-book, not for movie, since they had to include that *&^% Sawyer)

The 1890's league only has members from the Empire but some of the other leagues have had the odd member who wasn't a subject of the Empire.

Son of the Suns · Post by **Son of the Suns** » 2003-07-02 02:16am

At first I thought this movie was going to be lame, especially with Sean Connery's " That was naughty." line. After looking at the web site it looks like it might be good.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-07-02 02:21am

Son of the Suns wrote:At first I thought this movie was going to be lame, especially with Sean Connery's " That was naughty." line. After looking at the web site it looks like it might be good.

But there was like no context to that in the previews. It's hard to judge how good or bad it could be.

Son of the Suns · Post by **Son of the Suns** » 2003-07-02 02:25am

neoolong wrote:
Son of the Suns wrote:At first I thought this movie was going to be lame, especially with Sean Connery's " That was naughty." line. After looking at the web site it looks like it might be good.
But there was like no context to that in the previews. It's hard to judge how good or bad it could be.

True, I just hope it not another movie will all the muscle behind the effects and no though to the script.

I can't believe I just wrote that, it sounds terrible.

Anyway it gave me a cool new av.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-07-02 02:27am

Son of the Suns wrote:
neoolong wrote:
Son of the Suns wrote:At first I thought this movie was going to be lame, especially with Sean Connery's " That was naughty." line. After looking at the web site it looks like it might be good.
But there was like no context to that in the previews. It's hard to judge how good or bad it could be.
True, I just hope it not another movie will all the muscle behind the effects and no though to the script.

I can't believe I just wrote that, it sounds terrible.

Anyway it gave me a cool new av.

You're right. It does sound terrible. Are you hung over or something?

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-07-02 02:27am

I saw the preview for it when I went to see The Matrix Reloaded, which was a few weeks ago already.

Seems like it's going to be just another action movie, as far as I could tell.

Son of the Suns · Post by **Son of the Suns** » 2003-07-02 03:01am

You're right. It does sound terrible. Are you hung over or something?

It's 2 AM in the morning where I live and I'm on a message board,with one of my finals tomorrow.

I wish I was drunk........

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-07-02 03:10am

Then go to sleep.