Jump to content

Talk:The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (film): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
ColScott (talk | contribs)
Megaman89 (talk | contribs)
Line 46: Line 46:
==F/Phantom==
==F/Phantom==
which is it phantom or fantom
which is it phantom or fantom


==Box Office==

Film is listed as one of the top 25 for that year worldwide yet monkey keeps reverting

http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com/index.cgi?top=50&start=2003&finish=2003&order=worldwide&keyword=&links=allposters.com&popups=yes

Revision as of 05:07, 7 August 2007

WikiProject iconFilm Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Edward Hyde's size

In the description here hyde is described as such: "also in the novel Mr. Hyde is a short man with murderous instincts and not a giant beast like in the film". However, it is mentioned in the novel and in the second comic book series that Jekyl was withering from the lack of his sins while Hyde had grown due to his indulging in them. The hulking Hyde is appropriate. It is the lack of civility when not on a rampage that is in error in the film. 68.48.174.136 17:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition the the criticism list

Sorry I added this without any proper referencing...if anyone has anything to add, I'll be a very happy man. Iwan Berry 21:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Problems

The descriptions of characters do not make sense. The following is taken from the Allan Quartermain section: "The character matches with his original storyline as we are informed that he had two wives and a son. Since he doesn't die in any of the books we are led to believe that this adventure takes place after all the others."

This is badly structured and assumes a knowledge of the film, and the structure/timeline of the original comic. Therefore, it is not properly encyclopaedic.

I will attempt to re-write these so they make sense to a first time reader (i.e.. me), after doing a bit of research into the differences between the film and comic. fatbarry2000 22:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how could a character from an 1897 novel (The Invisible Man), still be under copyright? The only copyright exception I know of this nature is Peter Pan, which J.M. Barrie willed to a children's hospital for the perpetuity of the hospitals' existence. --Scottandrewhutchins 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright extends for 70 years after the death of the author in many countries and Wells lived a long timeColScott 02:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Venice Problem

Having added a list of perfectly rational criticisms of the Venice scene, I was surprised to discover that someone had written that the LXG is set in an alternate Universe, and "Venice in that universe is not our Venice.". That's perfectly reasonable of course, but makes for poor storytelling and detracts from the reliability of an already plot-hole filled film. If it has St Marks's Basilica, maskerade balls and gondolas on the canals - not to mention the word "Venice" appearing on screen when the scene begins - it probably is "our Venice". The scene is a perfect example of how the studio had very little knowledge concerning what they were handling, and wanted to make an action flick rather than something intelligent and compelling. 84.65.36.118 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Ending?

I along with several friends remember the ending scene having Quartermain's hand come up through the grave and grabbing the rifles, but I can't find any evidence supporting this. Can anyone help? Dodrian 03:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They talk about that on the DVD commentary.

Sequel?

I found no evidence supporting the claim made in the "The Ending" section that there is going to be a sequel. Therefore, I have deleted it.--Farquaadhnchmn 15:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly are a lot of fair-use images on this page

n/t Salad Days 03:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In response to that warning

I just stumbled upon this page and saw that warning, but i'm surprised nobody is talking about it. As far as I can tell, the plot description is WAAAAAAAY too long (longer than the plot description for 'The Godfather') and convoluted, and nothing on the page describes the central concept for the movie. I think the opening paragraph should have an extra sentence, something like "It is an adventure film set late in the 19th century, featuring an assortment of literary characters appropriate to the period." Then should come a list of characters, because that's important to the understanding. Then a short summary of the plot.

Just my two cents.ThatGuamGuy 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)sean[reply]

F/Phantom

which is it phantom or fantom


Box Office

Film is listed as one of the top 25 for that year worldwide yet monkey keeps reverting

http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com/index.cgi?top=50&start=2003&finish=2003&order=worldwide&keyword=&links=allposters.com&popups=yes