New League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen Movie In The Works

So it seems there's going be a new League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie, also by 20th Century Fox, in the works.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/hoo-boy-league-of-extraordinary-gentlemen-is-getting-a-1779640794

Hopefully, they learn from the last movie's mistakes.

As possibly the only person in existence who kind of loved the first one, I'm excited for this.

To this day I still don't know why Sean Connery 'gave up' on acting because of the first one.

Even if it wasn't accurate to the comic book, it wasn't a bad adaption (I mean, did we need Hyde raping Skinner really?) for its time. There have been comic book adaptions far less faithful.

I'm glad they're continuing the concept though, its an interesting idea for a team.

edited 1st Jun '16 7:46:21 AM by Soble

I found the first one rather decent to be honest.With no experience of the comics though.They sound rather...interesting?

It's Alan Moore. Nuff said.

edited 1st Jun '16 10:32:27 AM by Eagal

Lightning Potter penis!

To this day I still don't know why Sean Connery 'gave up' on acting because of the first one.

IIRC he already had been toying with the idea of retirement before that.

The thing with the movie is that it isn't, at all, an adaptation of Alan Moore's comic.

Instead, it is an adaptation of the concept of the comic book: The greatest heroes of Victorian literature thrown together to form a team to defend Europe from all manner of evil.

The film takes the concept and plays it more or less straight. The book takes this concept, tells it to go fuck itself and injects it with an overdosis of rape, Deliberate Values Dissonance, cynism and overall grittiness.

The comic (Vol 1. and 2, chiefly, afterwards it loses steam) is pretty good for what is, by which I mean a utterly ruthless deconstruction of Victorian values (via deconstructing the heroes who represent those values) and a kick to the teeth of those stories, but I cannot fault, at all, the movie's intention of just using this concept in a straight manner without completely decharacterizing every single League member to prove a point about Victorian values.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the comic, but I also more or less agree with one of the reviews in the comic's trope page that it does more or less spit in the face of all the stories it is based on for the sake of making a point.

I can't fault someone for just, legitimately, wanting to see those heroes fighting together without becoming rapists, drug addicts and thieves.

Well, to be fair, the books' Hyde and Griffin were just as awful as the comics'. Then again, Book Hyde wasn't a hulking strongman...

Griffith I'll give you. Hyde was also a unrepentant monster, but see, part of the problem is that the original novel uses the tactic of Nothing Is Scarier. Hyde's atrocities are never really cleared up in full and we never exactly get a POV chapter of Hyde parading through the streets raping people to death. One of the most valid criticisms about the book is that it kills the entire fun of the situation by removing Hyde's Nothing Is Scarier element and turning him into pure shock value.

But the real characters that you can really go "sigh" is everyone else, but chiefly Allan Quartermain and Nemo. Nemo in particular is...weird. To pick a stark example: In the novel, when Nemo claims a few British lives, he is clearly wracked by guilt and conflicted about it. In the comic, Nemo is pretty much cackling maniacally at the prospect of murdering every single Englishman on planet earth, and actually attempts it once, never showing a shred of second thought.

I hear the sound of Alan Moore kneeling before his statue of Glycon once again, and casting his horrendous hex upon the cinemas...

I also liked the first movie, especially some of the stuff they added like Dorian. I disliked Tom at first, but after watching it a few times he grow on me.

But as much as I liked about it I really, really hate how they did Mina.

edited 1st Jun '16 11:28:42 PM by KnownUnknown

I liked the film a helluva lot, and was never really a fan of the comics. Something that's been consistent - I dislike the original Kick-Ass yet adore the film, etc. I'm not sure why Sir Sean picked LXG to be the one he blamed for his exit from cinema - he was great in it.

I'd say Skinner was LESS evil in the movie since he WASN'T the traitor and firmly a good guy, if still an asshole. But yeah, less Hyde rape the better IMO. And don't think I really wanted to see Sean Connery shtupping Peta Wilson. I actually did like Dorian Gray too, even if they did go a bit Hide Your Gays with him.

Either way, I'm kinda surprised Alan Moore is letting them try again with the comic.

Dorian Gray is gay?

....You haven't read the book have you? Yes he's gay. Well, bisexual is more accurate, but he still digs dudes to some degree, something the LXG film generally ignored.

Either way, I'm kinda surprised Alan Moore is letting them try again with the comic.

Entirely possible that the rights are with the publishers not him.

Alan Moore is also the kind of guy who would much rather spend his time complaining about something than actually doing anything about it...

(As I type this on an internet forum the irony slowly sinks in.)