Is LXG that bad?
#102
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: My chair
Originally posted by iggystar
People had a problem with the CGI in Hulk but don't have a problem with the CGI in LXG? I guess there's no accounting for taste, but c'mon!?
People had a problem with the CGI in Hulk but don't have a problem with the CGI in LXG? I guess there's no accounting for taste, but c'mon!?
#103
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by darqleo
And as one poster stated, not only could Mina Harker The Vampire go out in the daylight, she could see her image in her little compact that she carries (her first attack scene she checks her face to clean herself up).
And as one poster stated, not only could Mina Harker The Vampire go out in the daylight, she could see her image in her little compact that she carries (her first attack scene she checks her face to clean herself up).
As for the mirror, that bugged me the first time I saw the film but, if you look at the scene again, she isn't looking at her reflection in that mirror. The way she holds it lets her see the people behind her. If she really could see her reflection, Sawyer wouldn't have to indicate the spot of blood she missed by her lip (of course, he didn't notice the spot beside one of her eyebrows that suddenly disappeared in the next shot).
As for Dorian, you're right. He was never invincible. Then again
Spoiler:
As for Hyde, blame Allan Moore. He's the one who made a Hyde a huge ape. Of course, he actually had Jekyll comment about it in the comic book whereas the film makes no attempt to address that issue.
#104
DVD Talk Hero
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 39,668
Received 1,664 Likes
on
1,181 Posts
From: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell
Is it that bad.. not, but it's not that good either.
I'm still waiting to be impressed.
I'm still waiting to be impressed.
#106
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 7,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it really helps if you havent read the comics and arent familiar with the characters (like myself). thus these holes dont bother me since, for example, i dont know who dorian grey is suppose to be.
#107
DVD Talk Legend
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 18,531
Received 444 Likes
on
313 Posts
From: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Originally posted by RocShemp
As for Hyde, blame Allan Moore. He's the one who made a Hyde a huge ape. Of course, he actually had Jekyll comment about it in the comic book whereas the film makes no attempt to address that issue.
As for Hyde, blame Allan Moore. He's the one who made a Hyde a huge ape. Of course, he actually had Jekyll comment about it in the comic book whereas the film makes no attempt to address that issue.
#108
DVD Talk Godfather
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 65,293
Received 2,699 Likes
on
1,600 Posts
From: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Originally posted by renaldow
Yes, I have read them all, and much more from that era. I'd agree that they really bastardized Hyde in this movie.
Your right, Sawyer never became a wise crackin, car drivin, gun totin secret agent in his books. Mina never became a scientist either as far as I'm aware. The thing is, we don't know what happened to them after their stories ended, we don't know that they did or that they didn't. This is a fantasy, it's a what if. It takes place after these characters gained their fame in their own stories, and we visit them years later. I think this is the biggest problem people have. If you can't buy that premise, then you won't like the rest of the movie.
And yes, if you're familiar with the literature of the time, this movie is paced very much like a victorian action novel.
Yes, I have read them all, and much more from that era. I'd agree that they really bastardized Hyde in this movie.
Your right, Sawyer never became a wise crackin, car drivin, gun totin secret agent in his books. Mina never became a scientist either as far as I'm aware. The thing is, we don't know what happened to them after their stories ended, we don't know that they did or that they didn't. This is a fantasy, it's a what if. It takes place after these characters gained their fame in their own stories, and we visit them years later. I think this is the biggest problem people have. If you can't buy that premise, then you won't like the rest of the movie.
And yes, if you're familiar with the literature of the time, this movie is paced very much like a victorian action novel.
But see, all the characters in "LXG" with the exception of "The Invisible Man" are PUBLIC DOMIAN*. From what I understand "TInMa" could not be used because the creator's family still owned the rights.
Anyway, one can take the characters and tweak them however they want. Isn't this the point of "Public Domain"?
*The total absence of copyright protection. If
something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or
use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the
exclusive rights which apply to a copyright work
#109
DVD Talk Godfather
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 65,293
Received 2,699 Likes
on
1,600 Posts
From: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Originally posted by atari2600
it really helps if you havent read the comics and arent familiar with the characters (like myself). thus these holes dont bother me since, for example, i dont know who dorian grey is suppose to be.
it really helps if you havent read the comics and arent familiar with the characters (like myself). thus these holes dont bother me since, for example, i dont know who dorian grey is suppose to be.
I've started reading the short story "The Picture of Dorian Gray" by Oscar Wilde and the movie version didn't bother me at all. It's a very Gay story written about a gay man who paints a picture of the beautiful and sexy Dorian Gray with whom he's in love with.
#110
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by majorjoe23
Moore did mention it in the comic, but I'm pretty sure Robert Lewis Stevenson included a bit at the end of the book, commenting that Hyde seemed to have grown and that Jekyll was diminishing. It's been two years since I read the book though(Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, not LOEG) so I could be wrong.
Moore did mention it in the comic, but I'm pretty sure Robert Lewis Stevenson included a bit at the end of the book, commenting that Hyde seemed to have grown and that Jekyll was diminishing. It's been two years since I read the book though(Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, not LOEG) so I could be wrong.
As for my "blame Moore" comment, it wasn't meant as an attack on the comic (or the writer) but rather to show that the movie isn't really at fault in this regard since that was true to the source material. Of course Hyde was more viceral in the comic but the the constraints of a PG-13 (which I doubt was contractual but rather a mid-production decision - why else would you shoot footage of a guy's head popping open when you know it's never going to see the light of day?) wouldn't allow for what Hyde was really all about. But I will give credit for the film keeping the formula. Only because I like the idea that Jekyll knows what Hyde is about and yet he still takes the formula and fools himself into the thinking that Hyde tricked him. It was just very poignant to hear Hyde say "you knew what I was about every time you took the formula" followed by Jekyll insisting "no! I'm a good man. A good man!"
I just wish the movie had more moments like this. It really needed them but apparently the studio though character development and conflict wasn't interesting (at least according to the audio commentary and several articles floating around the net).
Last edited by RocShemp; 12-30-03 at 12:03 PM.
#111
DVD Talk Legend
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 18,531
Received 444 Likes
on
313 Posts
From: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Originally posted by Giantrobo
But see, all the characters in "LXG" with the exception of "The Invisible Man" are PUBLIC DOMIAN*. From what I understand "TInMa" could not be used because the creator's family still owned the rights.
Anyway, one can take the characters and tweak them however they want. Isn't this the point of "Public Domain"?
*The total absence of copyright protection. If
something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or
use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the
exclusive rights which apply to a copyright work
But see, all the characters in "LXG" with the exception of "The Invisible Man" are PUBLIC DOMIAN*. From what I understand "TInMa" could not be used because the creator's family still owned the rights.
Anyway, one can take the characters and tweak them however they want. Isn't this the point of "Public Domain"?
*The total absence of copyright protection. If
something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or
use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the
exclusive rights which apply to a copyright work
#112
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
People had a problem with the CGI in Hulk but don't have a problem with the CGI in LXG? I guess there's no accounting for taste, but c'mon!?
#113
DVD Talk Godfather
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 65,293
Received 2,699 Likes
on
1,600 Posts
From: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Originally posted by majorjoe23
The Invisible Man is long in the public domain, at least as literature, LXG's producers were hesitant to use THE Invisible Man because it was unclear whether Universal still holds the film rights to the character.
The Invisible Man is long in the public domain, at least as literature, LXG's producers were hesitant to use THE Invisible Man because it was unclear whether Universal still holds the film rights to the character.
From imdb.com
All of these characters - except for Rodney Skinner, the Invisible man - have fallen into the public domain, which means that anybody can write about them.
#114
DVD Talk Legend
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 18,531
Received 444 Likes
on
313 Posts
From: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Originally posted by Giantrobo
From imdb.com
From imdb.com
Also, Rodney Skinner was the character they created for the movie. The Invisible Man from Welles book is Hawley Griffin.
Last edited by majorjoe23; 12-31-03 at 10:09 AM.
#115
DVD Talk Godfather
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 65,293
Received 2,699 Likes
on
1,600 Posts
From: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Originally posted by majorjoe23
At the very least, the book is in the public domain, you can download it for free at Paradoxcafe.com and dozens of other sites. It's possible this is one of those Tarzan situations, where the character isn't in public domain, but the book is.
Also, Rodney Skinner was the character they created for the movie. The Invisible Man from Welles book is Hawley Griffin.
At the very least, the book is in the public domain, you can download it for free at Paradoxcafe.com and dozens of other sites. It's possible this is one of those Tarzan situations, where the character isn't in public domain, but the book is.
Also, Rodney Skinner was the character they created for the movie. The Invisible Man from Welles book is Hawley Griffin.
Yeah I know, Skinner was created because of Copyright issues. That's why they didn't use the "Real" Invisible Man character from the book.
That's my whole point.
#117
DVD Talk Special Edition
Originally posted by majorjoe23
Moore did mention it in the comic, but I'm pretty sure Robert Lewis Stevenson included a bit at the end of the book, commenting that Hyde seemed to have grown and that Jekyll was diminishing. It's been two years since I read the book though(Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, not LOEG) so I could be wrong.
Moore did mention it in the comic, but I'm pretty sure Robert Lewis Stevenson included a bit at the end of the book, commenting that Hyde seemed to have grown and that Jekyll was diminishing. It's been two years since I read the book though(Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, not LOEG) so I could be wrong.
Another thing that really bugged me about this disaster of a film: When the henchman took the "Hyde serum" not only did he turn into a 10-story tall ape, but he was still EVIL. The serum is supposed to bring your alternate mindstate to the forefont, so the guy should have been helping Hyde instead of throwing tanks and stuff at him.
Also in the book, not only was Hyde not a roof-jumping superhuman beast, but he was actually SMALLER than Jekyll and although he was a mean-spirited bastard, he also was frightened of many things, not a fearless deep-sea diver.
#118
DVD Talk Legend
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 18,531
Received 444 Likes
on
313 Posts
From: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Originally posted by Burnt Alive
Correct, but, Hyde was growing in the characteristic sense, not the physical. (ie: more Hyde, less Jekyll).
Another thing that really bugged me about this disaster of a film: When the henchman took the "Hyde serum" not only did he turn into a 10-story tall ape, but he was still EVIL. The serum is supposed to bring your alternate mindstate to the forefont, so the guy should have been helping Hyde instead of throwing tanks and stuff at him.
Also in the book, not only was Hyde not a roof-jumping superhuman beast, but he was actually SMALLER than Jekyll and although he was a mean-spirited bastard, he also was frightened of many things, not a fearless deep-sea diver.
Correct, but, Hyde was growing in the characteristic sense, not the physical. (ie: more Hyde, less Jekyll).
Another thing that really bugged me about this disaster of a film: When the henchman took the "Hyde serum" not only did he turn into a 10-story tall ape, but he was still EVIL. The serum is supposed to bring your alternate mindstate to the forefont, so the guy should have been helping Hyde instead of throwing tanks and stuff at him.
Also in the book, not only was Hyde not a roof-jumping superhuman beast, but he was actually SMALLER than Jekyll and although he was a mean-spirited bastard, he also was frightened of many things, not a fearless deep-sea diver.
#120
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by Burnt Alive
Also in the book, not only was Hyde not a roof-jumping superhuman beast, but he was actually SMALLER than Jekyll and although he was a mean-spirited bastard, he also was frightened of many things, not a fearless deep-sea diver.
Also in the book, not only was Hyde not a roof-jumping superhuman beast, but he was actually SMALLER than Jekyll and although he was a mean-spirited bastard, he also was frightened of many things, not a fearless deep-sea diver.
Last edited by RocShemp; 01-03-04 at 07:41 AM.




