DarkFather

It was original by 3-4 inches.

Brought to you by none other than the great Coppola. Guys, once I came back and I was Trek. Now I'm back and I'm Drac. No.

This film receives flames for deviating from the horror of the novel and turning the relationship of Dracula and Mina from that of a master and slave to star-crossed lovers. Well, there's no denying that liberties were taken with this film, but to me it remains a true Dracula piece for all of the right reasons. There is a mysticism about the whole thing, and a nostalgic quality that's the result of paying constant homage to old horror films. "Dracula" stands apart from other films. At times, it is deliberately tacky. Miraculously, none of the romanticism, style, and elegance are compromised because of that. It is both an over-the-top mess while being a film you can take seriously. It's one of a kind.

Interesting fact: It was George Lucas who suggested to Coppola that Dracula be decapitated at the end of the film so he "can't return." That's actually a good idea. Cool, Lucas.

The trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2-ZMhxTUs

Superman III is kind of a guilty pleasure for me, but that's for another thread entirely. ;)

Nanner Split said:

DarkFather said:

I think what it is, is that some readers become more mature and want the series they love so much to mature along with them. So they dellude themselves into believing said source material was "dark."

 

Like with pretty much anything Lewis Carroll ever wrote (Alice in Wonderland, etc.) ?

I don't know, are people using that approach to defend Burton's AIWL?

Vader VS Obi-1 and Obi-2. Now there's a thought. The Cat in the Hat meets Star Wars.

"Luca$h" ?

I like to call him "Luckass".

The stories in the "Superman Returns" video game for PS2 were far superior to the movie it was based on.

double post

FanFiltration said:

Krull

Weird, weird movie.

Sky: Return to Oz was also an insult to the series of books. Now, I grew up reading that series, so once in a blue moon I'll go take part in an Oz forum. It's silly how some posters on Oz forums claim RTO was "more dark, like the books."

Well, I don't know what those people are snorting, but the books were never dark. At all. Even the more "darker" aspects were played in a light-hearted, humorous way.

RTO was an outright crappy horror flick. Dorothy in a mental institution about to get shock therapy? WTF? Not to mention the inconsistencies with the books. That's another thing. Some fans want to claim it was more "faithful" than the classic Oz movie. No, it wasn't. The Emerald City was miles and miles away from where Dorothy's house landed. In the film, it's half a stone throw away. That's just one example of many.

I think what it is, is that some readers become more mature and want the series they love so much to mature along with them. So they dellude themselves into believing said source material was "dark."

You're smart enough to concede any point that doesn't compromise your stance in any way. As in, you conceding that Avatar is anime in the sense that it's "animation", while knowing full well I was referring to it as a certain Japanese style of animation. And heck, if you can't see the striking similarities between the art of Dragonball Z and Cowboy Bebop, I can't make you.

You're intentionally being difficult with me. Maybe six months ago, I would have seen this debate through, but I can now detect lost causes.

I hope we can continue getting along around the forum. Peace.

Gaffer Tape said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anime

"Anime is animation originating in Japan."  That's what it means.  Well, unless, of course, you refer to the original Japanese definition, which is simply an abbreviation of the American word "animation."  So it's either Japanese animation or any animation.  If you're referring to Avatar as simply being "animation," then, yes, I will have to concede that.  But anime is certainly not a style, otherwise Dragon Ball and Cowboy Bebop would have similar aesthetics, and they don't in the least.

I'll also concede the point that Avatar (and a lot of other American shows) are actually outsourced to mainland Asian countries, as is a lot of anime.  So, technically, you can say that a lot of these shows are animated by the same companies, but, again, I doubt anyone would call The Real Ghostbusters an anime, even though a lot of it was animated in the same or near locations as Dragon Ball.

So, yeah, Avatar, being a Nickelodeon cartoon, is not anime.  ^_^

You want to use Wikipedia as gospel, or do you want the truth? What is your response to my actual post?

But anime is certainly not a style, otherwise Dragon Ball and Cowboy Bebop would have similar aesthetics, and they don't in the least.

Gaffer. What are you talking about.

Look at the noses of Faye and Edward. Look at their expressions.

Cowboy Bebop and Dragonball Z differ slightly in their styles, but they follow the same general style. I mean, it's not even matter of opinion.

Thank you for being reasonable, bkev.

Anime is this:

Not this:

MONK: "I've meditated and trained for years. Soon, I will master the art of drawing the great anime. Hallowed be anime's name."

Here's your ancient, sacred art form passed down from generation to generation:

Anime is a style. I've never, ever heard that it has to be produced in Japan. Avatar so closely follows the style that in my mind, it falls under that category.

Also. Anime originated from American works. The big eyes came from Bambi and Mickey Mouse, and the unrealistic head set on a realistic body came from Betty Boop. So it isn't some ancient, sacred art style that only the Japanese are savvy to. America had a huge influence over it. Yes. We sloppy, inferior, useless, overweight, greedy Americans blew our load into the oh-so-superior Japanese creative fuck-caverns.

skyjedi2005 said:

Avatar the last airbender is so incredibly superior to the clone wars that i am suprised filoni had anything to do with airbender.

Most of season 1 of clone wars was okay but the ending with this Cad Bane boba fett ripoff with a bad accent totally changed my opinion on tuning in for season 2.

 

It was nice to read matt lanter saying he and his costar were trying to match Han Solo and Princess Leia of the originals than the prequels.

Still clone wars might be a slight improvement over the prequels, but in my opinion Lucas has way too much of a hand in things and way too much control.  I liked the genddy series because he stepped backed and allowed them to do their own thing, funny how that dvd is now permanently out of print because genndy did something Kershner did better star wars than george lucas, which is not allowed.

I really hope Mr Lucas daughter turns out a better writer than he is, because if not the future of clone wars is indeed very grim.

 

There is not a thing that cannot be destroyed to fit the prequels anymore.   They ruined the EU novels, the games etc.

To me i almost put the cut off point for star wars in 1996, before the laughably bad shadows of the empire and the special editions, and before the ruination of star wars in 1999.  1999 was also the year of vector prime when they destroyed the star wars EU in the first book by Killing Chewbacca.

 

There has been some good star wars fiction since then. I liked Shatter point, and revenge of the sith by stover, and dark lord.

In fact a lot of the tie in writers for the EU write so much better than Lucas it is almost a shame they were writing for the EU universe that does not exist as far as Lucas is concerned.

 

 

To this day i don't understand how a self described terrible writer allowed himself to write the 3 screenplays to the prequels.  The same guy who says he hates character and plot and likes to do purely visual films.

The strength of the prequels was in the visuals, but the non devloped characters and non existant plot made me not care in the end.  Six Hours of explosions, lasersword duels and cgi do not a good human story make.

I don't hate the prequels i just wish the characters were more fully developed than cardboard cutout archetypes.

They tried adding a soul to the visuals by having willaims compose some wonderful music.  But Even he this time could not save the films. 

I wish the effects were secondary to the human story.  But Lucas made the focus on what he considers his strongest abilties. I can only blame him for not hiring a different director for both attack of the clones and revenge of the sith and some other writers to help flesh out the skeleton plot.

To me you have only half a movie with the prequels, you have the effects music and sound effects, but the actors are either under used or ill used.  The human story of the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker the greatest jedi of his generation takes a back seat to the action.

Lucas had some truly great and epic ideas to use.  A lot of them were under used or underplayed or left in tne background or up to the tie in fiction writers to flesh out. 

He talked about the story of faust and miltons paradise lost on the 60 minutes interview, and when i saw revenge of the sith i missed the echo of these great literary works.  Because the turn was botched and made zero logical sense.  

I also wish a female writer could have helped Lucas on clones and sith to flesh out the character of padme, in clones and sith her character is ruined as much as anakins is.  I much prefer the phantom menace which at last focused on the characters.  What happened in 2 and 3, did lucas forget or something?

I agree that Lucas had great ideas. I once called him an "idea machine"... he's good throwing cool ideas onto the table, but when it comes to delivering it all on screen, he faulters very badly. When it came to the prequels, I think he should have left the writing and directing to more competent hands, while he acted as just a producer and consultant, which he would have excelled at.

You said Avatar wasn't anime, when it clearly is, so I jokingly said Star Trek isn't science fiction, when it clearly is. Makes sense unless you were talking about Cameron's "Avatar."

So nevermind.

ChainsawAsh said:

DarkFather, they changed the name of M. Night Shyamalan's movie based on the Avatar anime - it's now called The Last Airbender.  The Avatar they're talking about is James Cameron's new 3-D sci-fi movie.

Well that's messed up. Avatar and The Last Airbender.

Gaffer Tape said:

But... Avatar's not anime...

Star Trek isn't science fiction.

o_O

I'm a fan of Avatar the anime. Which is saying something, because I typically don't watch anime. It's hard to judge from the trailer of the live-action adaptation, but I can say that the Fire Nation ships looked awesome.

In the legacy comics you get a Cade Skywalker the son of Kol.  Who looks like a reject of a rock band and is a death stick junky who stands on the razors edge of the dark side.

Oh boy.

I remember being in the Wal-Mart toy section not long after TPM, and reading the Emporer's biographical card for his action figure. I think it said outright that Sidious/Palpatine were one in the same (or at the very least, switching between the two on its holo-card thingy). The details are fuzzy.

It was probably meant to be painfully obvious to the viewer from the very start of the PT, but obviously not to the surrounding protagonists.

With the first, I could hardly tell what was going on during the action sequences. It was like a big wreck on the screen, but not in the way I think it was intended.

I'm not a big Transformers fan anyway, so I think I'll pass on this one.

Is Jenny really a girl?

Lucas isn't worth name-calling or insults. He's hardly worth discussion as is. The more emotion you invest into the man, the more power his future actions towards Star Wars will have over you.