Ive never seen the original show and Im a big Hirsch fan but I have no idea what is going on there. Is it in the future, is he imaging it?

 

No, the Speedracer movie looks as much like a direct translation as anything you will see. Surreal futuristic car racing, lots of lights and colors, strange sidekicks and friends, huge conglomerate businesses controlling everything, even Racer X from the side making veiled threats. If you ever see the show, and then watch a Speedracer trailer you will see that the Wachowski brothers(or brother and sister, depending on how you look at it) are being as faithful as possible to the source material.

I believe that the masses that pay to see the movies in the theatres have a bigger impact on "re-imaginations" and "reboots" that we keep seeing. The directors get killed by critics and viewers alike for not being realistic enough in this day and age of CGI effects and HD.

 

The Hulk in the comic books evolved into something different, I think I can accept a movie evolution as well.

You're right, of course the audience now is a little more sophisticated than comic book readers in 1963. Still in all, just looking at comics I think Marvel and (especially) DC have retconned some of the coolest features of their respective universes out of existence by trying to keep things interesting after a several-decades long run.

 

I guess I'm just the crusty old guy that doesn't want anybody f**king around too much with the things I got off on as a kid.

 

You're right, of course the audience now is a little more sophisticated than comic book readers in 1963. Still in all, just looking at comics I think Marvel and (especially) DC have retconned some of the coolest features of their respective universes out of existence by trying to keep things interesting after a several-decades long run.

 

I guess I'm just the crusty old guy that doesn't want anybody f**king around too much with the things I got off on as a kid.

 

 

And that is completely understandable. Right now I think that directors biggest problem with adapting comics is retaining the same nostalgic qualities about the movie, and bringing the story up to speed without completely destroying the actual characters sensibilities.

 

We arent going to want to see Batman ask a computer bigger than himself a question about a case, and watch the computer make some beeble bobble noises, blink 50 different panel lights, and spit out a long narrow piece of paper with the answer to his question on it. We dont want to see Superman fight Lex Luthor for the 4th time in 5 movies(although we did. And i think it was a mistake, even though I enjoyed the movie). I think it is pretty safe to say we dont want to see Spiderman with another love story involving Mary jane.

 

But at the same time, what DO we want to see? If you go back through the aforementioned characters storylines, a huge portion of the older comics contain what i said we dont want to see anymore.

 

I think that comic book movies are starting to change from the "origins" that we had to endure because fans are sick of it. they know where the characters are from, how they got there, and what makes them tick. Now lets see them do what they do, and hope that it rocks. Thats pretty much how I feel about the Hulk. We know how he became the Hulk, the movie is supposed to start where the Ang Lee movie finished off, in the Amazon forest. Now the Banner is going to come to terms with himself and fight a bad guy. i cant ask for much more than that from a Hulk story.

Director Anthony Minghella dies because of a brain hemorrhage. He was 54. Totally out of nowhere. Sad.

 

RIP

I watched the alternate ending of I Am Legend today. Somehow, I ended up liking both, but I think most would have been more satisfied had the alternate ending been the theatrical ending.

 

If you planning on buying I Am Legend on DVD, it's worth the extra 3 bucks for all the bonus features and the alternate ending.

I watched the alternate ending of I Am Legend today. Somehow, I ended up liking both, but I think most would have been more satisfied had the alternate ending been the theatrical ending.

 

If you planning on buying I Am Legend on DVD, it's worth the extra 3 bucks for all the bonus features and the alternate ending.

 

I got it on Tuesday, but haven't opened it. Is there really another version of the WHOLE movie? Or just the alternate ending?

 

I had no problem with the theatrical ending. I never read the book so I had nothing to compare it to either.

American Gangster and Good Luck Chuck were both great movies.

I got it on Tuesday, but haven't opened it. Is there really another version of the WHOLE movie? Or just the alternate ending?

 

I had no problem with the theatrical ending. I never read the book so I had nothing to compare it to either.

 

I read the synopsis of the book, and it was undoubtedly better than the movie. Besides straying from an incredible idea for a movie, I Am Legend was destroyed by s***ty-looking CGI. It could've been so much more.

 

And SS2k5, I can't believe that about Good Luck Chuck. I just can't believe a movie starring Dane Cook could not suck.

If nothing else, the chicks in it make it totally worth it.

American Gangster and Good Luck Chuck were both great movies.

Only everyone in the movie industry disagrees with you.

 

I never thought I'd see these two movies in the same statement.

Only everyone in the movie industry disagrees with you.

 

I never thought I'd see these two movies in the same statement.

I dont know,they were both good movies.I thought Good luck Chuck was good because it was pretty raunchy and I didnt expect that.

Only everyone in the movie industry disagrees with you.

 

I never thought I'd see these two movies in the same statement.

 

Unless you're saying "Good Luck Chuck is the polar opposite of American Gangster."

 

See, I like Dane Cook in supporting roles. He was enjoyable in Dan In Real Life (probably because he got screwed in the movie) and Mr. Brooks (probably because

Kevin Costner cut his throat with a shovel

).

Only everyone in the movie industry disagrees with you.

 

I never thought I'd see these two movies in the same statement.

 

I'll fix the statement. American Gangster and Good Luck Chuck were both bad movies.

I'll fix the statement. American Gangster and Good Luck Chuck were both bad movies.

Oh hush. You think every movie sucks.

Oh hush. You think every movie sucks.

 

 

 

I did like No Country for Old Men! And for the challenge I sent this board earlier (5 movies better than the book) that I never checked up on... The movie was better than the book in the case of No Country.

Good Luck Chuck has Alba in undies, that is it.

Good Luck Chuck has Alba in undies, that is it.

 

which makes it totally worth it.... kidding:D

 

I did like No Country for Old Men! And for the challenge I sent this board earlier (5 movies better than the book) that I never checked up on... The movie was better than the book in the case of No Country.

I disagree - I thought the book was better. But the movie was indeed well done.

 

Movies better than the book?

 

--The Hunt for Red October

--LOTR - all 3

 

Nothing else comes to mind at the moment, but I'll give it some more thought.

 

I disagree - I thought the book was better. But the movie was indeed well done.

 

Movies better than the book?

 

--The Hunt for Red October

--LOTR - all 3

 

Nothing else comes to mind at the moment, but I'll give it some more thought.

 

Didn't read The Hunt for Red October. Disagree about Lord of the Rings.

 

As far as No Country for Old Men, I thought the Coen brothers tightened up some of McCarthy's dialogue, rid some essentially meaningless scenes (the movie was astoundingly tight), and upped the suspense. If you remember the scene with Chigurh and Wells in the hotel room, the Coen's were able to take about 12-15 lines of McCarthy's dialogue and put it down into one--"ATM?"

 

I also think it was more effective that when the Mexicans killed Moss, the Coen's didn't give Carla Jean a paragraph of dialogue like McCarthy did. They gave her a quivering lip, and that, I thought, given the previous circumstances with what type of relationship the Sheriff was trying to build with her and Moss, was more believable.

 

Overall, I just thought McCarthy didn't tighten his story enough. Parts felt loose and careless. I thought the Coen's fixed that for him.

 

The only superiority I feel the book had over the film was letting the reader/audience know that it was the Sheriff's story, not Moss' or Chigurh's.

Edited March 23, 200818 yr by BobDylan

Didn't read The Hunt for Red October. Disagree about Lord of the Rings.

 

As far as No Country for Old Men, I thought the Coen brothers tightened up some of McCarthy's dialogue, rid some essentially meaningless scenes (the movie was astoundingly tight), and upped the suspense. If you remember the scene with Chigurh and Wells in the hotel room, the Coen's were able to take about 12-15 lines of McCarthy's dialogue and put it down into one--"ATM?"

 

I also think it was more effective that when the Mexicans killed Moss, the Coen's didn't give Carla Jean a paragraph of dialogue like McCarthy did. They gave her a quivering lip, and that, I thought, given the previous circumstances with what type of relationship the Sheriff was trying to build with her and Moss, was more believable.

 

Overall, I just thought McCarthy didn't tighten his story enough. Parts felt loose and careless. I thought the Coen's fixed that for him.

 

The only superiority I feel the book had over the film was letting the reader/audience know that it was the Sheriff's story, not Moss' or Chigurh's.

That "loose" effect of No Country (the book) was, honestly, one of the little things I liked about the book. Its something you see in his other books too. It makes the story more believeable - sometimes, a random moment is just a random moment. Without them, it feels more staged.

 

Finally seen Once a couple months after somebody here recommended it,I think it was PA.Fantastic film and probably the closest I will ever get to a musical.Iam biased towards the movie considering Iam a fan of "The Frames" the main characters band in real life.There was a rawness that really grabs you.The only thing I had a problem with was the first scene they did together in the music store,they were able to play the music together of a song he wrote,in harmony and in tune right on the spot.

Only everyone in the movie industry disagrees with you.

 

I never thought I'd see these two movies in the same statement.

 

That's a leap of faith right there... I rented them over the same weekend, which is why they were in the same statement. That doesn't mean anything for their relationship. It was completely random. Anyway, I liked Chuck. I thought it was funny LCD humor, which if fun every once in a while. It did what it set out to do.

 

Anyways, back to your regularly scheduled programing... I saw I am Legend over the weekend, and was really disappointed. I was expecting something more like The Stand from the previews. I was OK with the whole vampire thing, but the ending sucked. There were so many potentially good ways to end that movie, and they picked the worst one. Ugh.

The movie The Ruins is based off of a book.

 

My sister read it and said that it was pretty freaky.

Into the Wild is an amazing movie. Very thought provoking and interesting, I loved every minute of it.

Finally saw The Darjeeling Limited. I liked it, though not nearly as much as I liked The Life Aquatic. Probably because there wasn't enough Bill Murray.