I tried very hard to do that, but the diversions are just so egregious that, I suspect, I would have thought similarly without having read the comics. The car is out of place and odd. Tom Sawyer has no business being there. Mina isn't a vampire. The other-Hyde is very strange, and the pseudo-Phantom is both odd and dull. Or, "was," the last time I saw it.

I often go in knowing something of the feelings of "The Internet," but try and form my opinions because that's what real people do...

I liked John Carter of Mars (because "John Carter" was a stupid shortening of the title) quite a bit, and really don't understand what people took against.

For "LXG," the whole shebang was very weird, sad and disappointing. It got Connery out of films, Norrington out of films, seems to have had a negative impact on Peta Wilson's career, certainly caused major (..further..) rifts between Alan Moore and DC, Alan Moore and the film industry, Alan Moore and America, etc., etc. The legal hoo-hah was - to an outside observer - very unfortunate and disappointing on several levels (adaptations, changes, plagiarism lawsuits, legal settlements, film lawyers, etc., etc.). It's nice when things you enjoy get adapted (particularly if some fools won't read comics), so you can share the enjoyment with more people - but sad when the adaptation is so far removed from the source that it does, however unfairly, reflect back badly on the original. Fortunately, enough people still read TLoEG and discover that it's much better than the film. So there's that.

There are already so many comments about The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen to respond to that it would merit its own thread, so I'll just try to cover the basics.

Being a longtime comic book reader, I'm fine with adaptations that diverge from source material. I think it's easy to forget now, but it wasn't until Sin City that we ever got an actual transliteration of a comic to film. Before that, we were lucky if characters even had the same names and back stories! Of course, League predates Sin City by two years so for those who were bothered by the divergence at the time so that example only really works for viewers coming to the film in retrospect.

I do agree that Fox's insistence on the PG-13 rating hindered the film from really going for the gold, but as one of the actors (I couldn't tell which) remarked in the commentary track, if it had been R-rated, "It might have made $7 million." (I'm pretty sure that was a joke at the paltry box office performance of the film, indicating that $7 million would have been an improvement, but I don't know when the commentary was recorded.)

I think it's a bit dubious to be too hung up on fealty to Moore's source material, given that he himself stole all his characters from other works. The characters as Moore interpreted them are largely the versions who made it to the screen. Sure, I'd have liked to have seen Mina remain the team leader but I can also appreciate restructuring the film around Sean Connery, particularly with no one else in the cast having any real name recognition then (or now) even remotely close to his.

As far as Tom Sawyer, I agree he's an egregious addition to the ensemble given that he doesn't originate from the same milieu as the others, but I do like the relationship he has with Quartermain. It may not have originated with the source material but I think it plays well on screen. It helps underscore Quartermain's twilight year arc.

One more thing that I appreciated about the film was that they changed The Invisible Man/"Skinner" from being the rapist that Moore felt compelled to write. That aspect of the source material bothered me and I didn't mind seeing that fail to make it to the screen in the least.

Regarding Alan Moore's reaction, spoiling of the film, relationship with DC and Hollywood: Moore has traditionally been a contrarian antagonist anyway. And, as one of the producers pointed out, Moore has no real reason to be pissed at this particular film. He sold his America's Best Comics imprint to Wildstorm, which Jim Lee then sold to DC Comics, meaning that's how DC acquired everything Moore had done under his own label. Except for The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Because its film rights had been negotiated with Fox prior to the sale of America's Best, Moore and O'Neill retain full rights to that property. They can do whatever they want with it, as it was exempt from the sale to Wildstorm. Any resentment he may have toward DC should really be directed at Jim Lee, and he ought to be thankful that this one film at the very least protected that property for him.

As for the lawsuits, Moore himself was much freer to pilfer literary characters in the public domain than Fox was to secure the film rights for same. It's unfair to the film that Universal retains the rights to "The Invisible Man" or that some Canadian dude has the film rights to Fu Manchu for the next ~30 years. The producers indicated in their commentary track that they tried to secure those character rights but that neither party would play ball. They did what they could. This is what happens when your source material isn't comprised of original characters and content, which brings me back to the point that I find it somewhat misguided to demand exacting fealty to Moore.

That last paragraph is also the case I would have made for it in my "Who Told You That Movie Sucked?" piece. Moore put the film behind the 8-ball in the first place by taking toys from so many other sandboxes to play with in his own. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is, in essence, glorified fan fiction. I think that's important to remember whether discussing the original comic or the film.

What a polite way of putting it!

I've never really thought about "League..." being
but that pretty well nails it.

While Moore's outward demeanor is that of a total prig he *does* write some interesting stuff. I enjoyed "League..." the graphic novel quite a bit and thought the film was better than most gave it credit.

I just finished watching this one and it was fabulously cheesy! I may have to hunt down a hard copy if there is one (I have not looked yet but will!) The movie...I don't even know where to start. The sound effects, the acting, the sound effects...

Thanks BobO'Link for sharing this one! I don't know if you have watched it before yourself, but you should if you haven't!

After completely ignoring this thread for the full month I'd like to chime in and thank Shadokitty for stepping up and hosting, I had a lot of fun cramming in sci-fi movies into my hectic month even if it was in a bubble of DVDTalk isolation. ...There's still time for me to cram in LXG!

I missed this in my catch-all response to the chatter about The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. First, thanks for reading! I obviously agree with you about the nature of people actively rooting against a film, particularly for external reasons. (Though, that said, I do intend a companion piece to this in which I'll look at more legitimate reasons why a movie-goer might shun a film.)

As for John Carter, I've said since it was released that I think it'll be the next film to enjoy a Nightmare Before Christmas-like resurrection. Overlooked initially, but it'll be discovered in the coming years through streaming and TV broadcast by audiences who will say, "Man, Disney totally screwed up that ad campaign. I wish I'd seen it sooner!"

Of course, now that Disney has Star Wars, they won't have any obvious reason to bother with the Barsoom franchise. Hopefully, another studio can and will work out something and make a go at it.

Alpha Video released it: Grindhouse Double Shock Show: Star Odyssey (1979) / Prisoners of the Lost Universe (1983). It should still be available.

Thanks! It's now on my wish list at Amazon (about 7 bucks new). Next time I make an order I'm going to pick it up.

It's also included in the Mill Creek 50 Drive-In Classics. Link

Yes, I watched it back in 2010 during my first foray into this challenge. I enjoyed it. Like you said it's "fabulously cheesy!" You're welcome!

Do you know about the quality? I have both of those on a Mill Creek set and would upgrade if the quality is better than a VHS transfer.

Mine is on the Mill Creek "Strange Tales" set. It's a 20 movie 4 disk set with other SF cheese. It's available from a few MP vendors at Amazon for ~$6 shipped. That link has a list of titles in the set. My set is a double-alpha type case with the 2 disks in a standard snap-in overlap on the front and back cover rather than the envelopes MC currently employs. If you go that route rather than the Alpha release mentioned by coyoteblue I recommend using "aokmovies2" simply because I've done several orders from them with no issues.

I'd probably go with one of the Mill Creek sets simply because of all the other films included. That Drive In set has some pretty good titles on it (as well as a few which borderline bad taste) and is at a 6 month low price according to camelcamelcamel.com.

Hmm, some options to think over. Though, I probably would exclude the Mill Creek 50 movie one just because I would probably never watch any of the other movies. The "Strange Tales" one is an option as it's very similarly priced to the 2-fer.

Well, Travis and I are down to the last five episodes of Star Trek:TOS:Season 3. It's been a long haul that we hope to finish tonight! Considering there was a week we didn't get any watches in and Travis has been under the weather this week, I think we've done pretty good. Next month we do plan on tackling The Animated Series as well. Hopefully that one will be a little easier to get in.

I still have two more checkmarks and hope to at least get one of them done this afternoon.

The copy of Buck Rogers in the 25th Century S1 I ordered came in this past Monday and I watched the first 2 episodes last night (both 2 parters). I found it's not as bad as I'd remembered and the Pilot did a good job of setting up the series. I really enjoyed the second episode with Jack Palance and Roddy McDowell and was surprised when I saw their names as well as Buster Crabbe(!) on the opening credits. Palance really hammed it up and was great! It *did* annoy me that the planet supplying plant material for Earth's food supply appeared to be a desert based on the shots of the planet from space.

Twiki still annoys the crap out of me, mainly the "biddi-biddi-biddi" uttered frequently as well as the lame "jokes" which sometimes follow. At least most of those utterances are "interpreted" by Dr. Theopolis who doesn't bother me at all other than the somewhat inconsistent manner in which he's "animated" at times. The fact that I recognize Mel Blanc's voice, which is coming from a non-animated character, is part of the Twiki annoyance factor.

The visual effects looked mostly a bit sub-par (even for the time the show was produced) but I can overlook that considering the nature of the series. My memories of Battlestar Galactica is the graphic effects were better than what's on display here in spite of reading many of the visual effects are recycled from BSG. I hope the theme song continues as instrumental. That sung version on the Pilot is worse than the terrible theme song from Enterprise! It also gets me how we're 500+ years in the future but everyone *still* wears mostly 70s Disco style clothing. I guess the producers didn't get the message that the Disco fad died around the time the program began production.

The two episodes I watched were real 80s style cheesy fun. So much cheese (as well as skin) that I tend to think it was intentional to keep the adults interested in what outwardly appears to be a Saturday AM cartoon in live action.

My 6 year old granddaughter came in part way through the Pilot and seemed to really liked the show. I'll know better in a few days when I ask if she wants to see a few more episodes.

Based on what I've seen and have read about the series I'll be picking up S2 shortly. It'll be interesting to see the reportedly more serious tone and change of venue taken for that season.

Guess I'll have to finally break out that Battlestar Galactica set to see what all was recycled for Buck Rogers...

I watched the Animated Series for the first time last year and I thought it was really cute. There were some clunkers as there are in any show but there were a couple of episodes that were better than TOS episodes.

That is quite an accomplishment. I watched all of the original series last year, and it took me quite some time with long pauses (especially during the last season). Overall, I love the show, and the really good episodes outweigh the atrocious ones.

Good to know! I know it'll be only 11 hours total, if I remember right, so it should be a lot easier to get through just for that alone! I have never watched it, so I am looking forward to seeing what it looks like.

Man, this season 3 is hard to get through. Out of the ones we've watched, I think there have been 3 I've enjoyed and felt it was worth it. Out of the rest, maybe 2 or 3 that weren't so bad and the rest were just, well, awful. I know there was a lot going on behind the scenes in this season and it certainly shines through. I'm very glad people were able to look past this season and get the movies made which led to other ST series, though!

I do wonder if I had a little bit more time between episodes if I would feel a bit differently. I really don't think these shows were meant to be watched all in big chunks. The inconsistencies alone show this, I think!

I am glad I am doing this. I would have sworn I had watched all of them, but have a feeling a lot just weren't repeated on TV often and I missed them. Most of this last season, I don't think I saw at all, though seasons 1 and 2 were very familiar.

The first time I saw a significant number of Star Trek episodes (original series) was when I started attending Trek conventions in the 1970s and the shows were projected in 16mm color prints. (A great way to first experience these shows.) My family didn't have a working TV when they first came on and I had to watch episodes at a friend's house on his b&w TV. Which was hard because we were both in the Boy Scouts at the time and the meetings were on the same night Trek was on. The conventions were also the first time I saw any of the animated episodes.

Back then, a common topic of discussion at the conventions was the proposed movie, which was still a few years away. I remember a panel with science fiction authors Isaac Asimov, Harlan Ellison, and Ben Bova and they recounted the failed efforts to sell Paramount on one of the many screenplays being written, including one by Ellison (author of "The City on the Edge of Forever" ST episode). At that point (1975? 1976?) they were all fed up and dismissed the idea that a film would ever get made.

Within the past decade, it dawned on me how much anger there was at these conventions. I was attending an anime convention here in NYC about a decade ago and I noted to myself just how nice all the volunteers were and it triggered a long-buried memory of the time I was a volunteer at a Trek convention in the '70s. I couldn't remember a thing about what I did there as a volunteer except for one snippet: I was on the stairs between floors at the old Commodore Hotel as a line was forming there for the big event that evening and I was running up to get to my post and a girl on line snarled at me in her best Queens (NY) accent: "There's a LINE heah!" and I shouted back, as I was running, "But I'm a volunteer!" And that's all I remember. What must it have been like for me, who can remember every slight I've suffered since the age of 4, to block out any other memories?

I attended a couple of Trek conventions in the 1990s and they were much, much nicer affairs, because, by then, Trek fans weren't eagerly awaiting something that might not come. In fact, they'd had more Trek by then than they could possibly want! Curiously, these Trek cons never once triggered my memory of being a volunteer once.

My goal of watching Season 1-3 of the Twilight Zone is in sight. Only 5 more episodes to go.

Mel Blanc's voice is the only reason I sorta like that character. He was missing from the first several episodes of season 2, and they used a generic "little kid" voice for Twiki (and no "biddi-biddi-biddi"). I hated that, but maybe you'll like it.
Are you saying they re-used BSG effects in Buck Rogers? I never noticed it if they did.
I only noticed one two-parter that used the sung version of the song over the end credits in the episodes I watched, so you have at least one more to look forward to.
Nope, it stays just as goofy and cheesy in season 2.

I only have three more episodes of Buck Rogers in the 25th Century to watch, so I'll probably finish that tonight or early tomorrow morning.

Thanks again to BobO'link! I was able to finish the checklist thanks to the links you posted. Didn't enjoy the last two as near as much as the first one but they counted!

I'm happy to help! I'm glad you were able to finish and found a title to add to your collection!

I'll not get mine completed but it's due to me devoting time to watching "new" stuff rather than pulling off the shelves to get a few checklist items. I'd hoped to use nothing but "new" this time and it just didn't quite work out. I had titles lined up to complete the checklist but didn't make time for them.

That's what it says on Wikipedia (but...)

IMDB says:

The animation is standard for Filmation of the era, but I learned a couple of years ago that the reason for that is that the head of the company resisted outsourcing the animator jobs to other, cheaper countries. He felt it was worth the trade in the quality of animation to keep the work in America. I can dig that.

As for the series itself, Shatner sounds like he's pumped full of NyQuil but the rest of the cast is game. The writing is also nice in two ways. It doesn't talk down to engage children, and there are a lot of solid science-fiction ideas instead of just excuses for phaser fights all the time.

Perhaps the most interesting thing I learned from reading Inside "Star Trek": The Real Story by former producers Herbert F. Solow and Robert H. Justman is that the perception has always been that Star Trek was a ratings failure. What was overlooked at the time was that among viewers who owned a color TV, it was one of the highest rated shows on the air.

More than anything else, I feel that what hurt the franchise there in the 90s was that writers like Asimov, Ellison, Bova and their ilk went nowhere near any of the spin-offs. That's not to say they didn't still have decent, sometimes even terrific, writing. But there was no science-fiction pedigree the way there was for the original series.

I think the pistol Hawk has (and in later eps, Buck has one like it too) is a re-used prop from BSG, but I'm too lazy to check it out. I also saw a jacket on an extra in a later ep that looked a little like a BSG jacket, so I don't doubt they re-used props, costumes, and sets, and maybe some effects shots as well. A bigger fan of both shows could probably point out a bunch of them that I wouldn't notice (like the control sticks example above, which seems obvious after it's been pointed out).

They did make a lot of use of the Universal backlot in the second season. Even the suburban street (from Leave it to Beaver, Dragnet, Adam-12, The Munsters, etc.) was used in one show.

I pretty much took the last day of the month off from the challenge. Not necessarily my intention, but I ended up being away from home until late in the evening. Really enjoyed this month. While I wasn't a big-time contributor to this thread, I did keep up with the all of the discussion here. Until next time...