Interview with the freethinker

[LordRetard]

I can't possibly understand why people did not like the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. What was so awful about it? At that it did have Sean Connery.

[Kimra]

I can't possibly understand why people did not like the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. What was so awful about it? At that it did have Sean Connery.

I am praying for sarcasm here... But if you want the list, I can write it. It will be a detailed list, with details.

Sean Connery is the only good thing about the movie, but he doesn't exactly fit into the dilapidated old man image that Quartermain is portrayed as in the comic.

So okay I'm judging a B-grade movie on an A-grade graphic novel, so maybe I'm not being fair. If I ever have the stomach to watch this movie again, I will try and watch it without the prejudice of knowing that the original material was so much better than it is.

[LordRetard]

Definitely not sarcasm. I actually liked the movie. But you don't have to bother writing the list if you're lazy.

Maybe it's because I didn't read the graphic novel that I didn't care that it didn't meet expectations that I didn't actually have.

[Edminster]

Maybe it's because I didn't read the graphic novel that I didn't care that it didn't meet expectations that I didn't actually have.

I'm pretty certain this is the reason I liked it.

Also the aforementioned Sean Connery.

[GreenCrayon]

I thought it was going to be better than it was. So many opportunities squandered.

I'm in the process of acquiring the original comics now on Kimra's suggestion (and the urging of Real Life friends from WAY back); feedback to be given upon digestion.

[Kimra]

I thought it was going to be better than it was. So many opportunities squandered.

I'm in the process of acquiring the original comics now on Kimra's suggestion (and the urging of Real Life friends from WAY back); feedback to be given upon digestion.

Oh I look forward to your informed opinion. (there is actually no sarcasm in that sentance)

[ruotwocone]

I thought it was going to be better than it was. So many opportunities squandered.

I'm in the process of acquiring the original comics now on Kimra's suggestion (and the urging of Real Life friends from WAY back); feedback to be given upon digestion.

ditto.

[LordRetard]

I just worry that the comic won't stand up to the impressions I got from the movie.

[Cirtur]

League of Gentlemen is better than any extraordinary gentlemen.

[Kimra]

League of Gentlemen is better than any extraordinary gentlemen.

Yes but it's only for local people.

[Cirtur]

Have I mentioned how we don't burn people that quote League of Gentlemen?

[GreenCrayon]

I've read the first volume of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (comprising six issues).

As I was initially tasked with giving an opinion of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen graphic novel as it relates to the later film, direct comparison is inevitable. And, in a way, that's a shame. They stand as almost entirely different works. While the basic premise of both works is ostensibly the same (take a bunch of period characters, now in the public domain, and blend them together) the resultant works bear very few similarities.

First, I'll begin with a few ways that the graphic novel could be off-putting, especially to people that enjoyed the film (and discarding the obvious, such as how unpleasant reading can make some people feel and the difference in pacing). I took a bit of getting used to Kevin O'Neill's artwork style, but it pretty much seems so did he, because as the series progresses, the quality of the artwork improves. Both the graphic novel and the film take a grandiose vision towards fantastical scenery, and O'Neill depicts some awe-inspiring vistas. Nonetheless, the film did manage to be more visually stunning (pretty much a given, when considering the medium) by the breadth of a hair.

That's almost where my "criticism" of the book ends, though, if it's even fair to have labelled as a negative. Moore spins a tale more coherent and deep than the film ever attempted, even if he didn't do the Hollywood explosive ending... which brings me to a complaint about the movie. Why was Venice blown up? It felt tacked on, as if there was a desperate need for an epic effects scene, but the plot couldn't support one, and pacing be damned.

Anyway, back to the book. There's thick, rich background aplenty, from the charming adverts in the back (I loved the way some of them dropped clues about what was yet to come) to all the properly realised histories of the characters. Each of them is more thoroughly fleshed out, and wishy-washy characters who seemed out of place in the film (I'm looking at you, Tom Sawyer) were gracefully never included. They bore a greater resemblance to how they appeared in their initial works, and they were well motivated, which the film couldn't always claim. The relationships between the characters in the book was solid (if actually strained within the context of the story) and gratifying, and I especially liked that Mina got a significantly more central role, rather than just standing back and letting one of the male characters run the show.

There were lots more references to obscure characters, all blended into making a more colourful and more properly realised vision wherein works of fiction all took place within the same ficton. That praise given, I have to admit that I found a few of the cameos a little strained, and a bit cheesy. It was a delicate mix, and occasionally it didn't quite work as I think was hoped.

There wasn't nearly enough of this graphic novel, a failing of the medium again as they're time consuming to put together and the pay-off isn't always guaranteed. This was offset magnificently by all the details in the aforementioned adverts, and the work of fiction that appeared in the last few pages of every issue, really giving a feeling of value to the publication. Having said there wasn't enough, I'm a glutton for good work, and my next task is finding the time to get through the second volume. I'll probably take my time over that one a great deal more than this, and I'll definitely find the time to read this one again.

[Kimra]

I've read the first volume of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (comprising six issues)....

I'm sure you can see, why having that graphic novel in my head when going to see a movie of the same name (which comprises of nothing really the same), could be off putting.

I tend to avoid complaining about Mina's role in the movie, because as a woman perhaps I'm overly demanding that the character who is by far the mentally strongest (and completely non-powered/enhanced whatever) doesn't dwindle into a nothing behind the guise of "Sean Connery is here, we can not offend him and make him take orders from a woman!" But, yes, maybe I just don't like to see the female get relegated to the side lines, or perhaps it was a really lame thing for them to do?

The inclusion of Dorian Gray, and Tom Sawyer both seemed to be because of a moment of panic when they (writers/directors/film studios) realised that they did not have any American characters for the audience to sympathise with. I'm honestly not even sure if these characters fit into the same time frame as the other novels. For example I'm fairly sure that all of the other characters where written and published around the same time as each other (barring perhaps Quartermain who is very old and therefore his story/stories where probably published some time before the others).

Shooting up Venus was done better in Bond's 'Casino Royal', and it did seem tacked on for the hell of an action sequence. This is hardly surprising when the graphic novel induces thinking and the movie is, in all sense and purpose, a computer graphic driven action movie. I honestly can't even remember why they did it, except that there where flying bats and car chases... which are both not surprisingly absent from the comic.

Anyway. Perhaps the movie is good without the influence of the novel (comic whatever it's called). But as everything I loved about the comic was absent in the movie I find it hard to consider it anything but a cheap rip-off. Sort of like a the watches you get from a street vendor claiming to be "Rolex" but are instead spelt "Rolox".

[ruotwocone]

Shooting up Venus was done better in Bond's 'Casino Royal', and it did seem tacked on for the hell of an action sequence. This is hardly surprising when the graphic novel induces thinking and the movie is, in all sense and purpose, a computer graphic driven action movie. I honestly can't even remember why they did it, except that there where flying bats and car chases... which are both not surprisingly absent from the comic.

shooting on location on Venus was probably pretty tough for them... also, flying bats!? how did they make those? damn you mad scientists! what will you think of next?

[LordRetard]

I believe they made one bat walk over a blue-screen two or three times, then edited it in.