DrCrowTStarwars

captainsolo said:

It's an odd beast. Finally saw this a year or so ago. What exactly they were thinking no one knows.

The period setting is done acceptably, the costumes aren't bad at all, but it's very gloomy and not a pleasant place to be in. Sounds fine for setting up an epic tale of heroic triumphs against villainy...oh wait I'm getting ahead of myself.

This picture drags and drags so badly that it is extremely difficult to maintain interest. And it shouldn't. Costner appears as if he were still drained by Dances With Wolves and provides for a Robin so un-affecting that it becomes near impossible to care for anything. The story takes many weird turns in the middle of cliche after cliche that you just want the darn thing to end. It should have not been this bad. All the necessary materials were there to at least make an interesting picture.

By the time the woefully miscast Christian Slater breaks the period setting fourth wall it's far too late to stop. The only good point is Alan Rickman much like Tim Curry in Disney's Three Musketeers a few years later. But he sticks out like a sore thumb due to some truly strange subplots (with the crone...avoiding spoiler....what was that!?!?!) and the fact that the entire climax hinges on not only wedding Marion but....uhm....did I see what I think I saw?????

Arguably the longest ever buildup for a Connery closeup. I'd rather see Robin & Marion again, and that was a low-ish budget confused muddle. For all the flack the 2010 Scott version took, it was rather enjoyable on the big screen for the mishmash of modern film character psychobabble and classical Hollywood.

The 1938 film is the technical pinnacle of the 30's swashbuckler, one of the greatest bits of escapism ever produced and is untouchable. However, I do feel that it does not cover nearly all of the aspects of the Robin Hood story, ones that were better covered in the classic silent version with Douglas Fairbanks. While they are some of my favorites and absolute masterpieces, I feel that both stars had better adventure vehicles-Fairbanks in Mark of Zorro which is arguably the first superhero film ever made, and Flynn in the stupefyingly awesome Captain Blood.

PoT may have its fans, but I'm not one. I found it extremely frustrating because I spent the entire 2.5 hours trying to like it. And if you're going to do Robin Hood all gloomy, at least have some adventure or escapism or...anything.

 Oddly I think a lot of the weird turns are the stuff it ripped of from Robin of Sherwood like the gloom and the magic.  I think the makers were trying to bring that series to Hollywood to get what would be a fresh take for most people but they left out the heart of that series and tried to combine it with typical hollywood blockbuster set pieces and bad casting and so we ended up with something that felt like a painful retread of the ideas of that series instead of the celebration it was supposed to be.

Here is what confuses me, Costner was very good at playing likable modern American guys with a hint of a dark edge to them, so why would you cast him as a 12th century British hero?

I don't blame him for the movie, I blame whoever had the dumb idea of offering him the part in the first place.

Wolfgang Corngold's score for The Adventures of Robin Hood is one of the most perfect film scores of all time, it doesn't need to be replaced by anything.

Citizen Kane(I know it is a cliche but I love this film.)

The Third Man

Rear Window

Oh and because no one asked for it or cares rounding out my top ten are.

Superman The Movie.

Star Wars(The whole original Trilogy I count as one selection)

Duck Soup

Hot Fuzz

The Lord of the Rings(Again the whole series)

On Her Majesty's Secret Service

Oh and as a kid who grew up surrounded by tapes of Roy Rogers movies when I found out Trigger was in that movie, that just blew my mind.

Yeah The Adventures of Robin Hood is my fourth favorite film of all time.  That is a classic film.

Finally, some good news.  People helping each other for a change.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/03/detroit-man-walking-commute-funds-raised/22788543/

I can't stand that movie.  It's just such a bad remake of Robin of Sherwood, it's just painful to watch.

It took me three sittings to get through it, that is how painful it was for me. To put that perspective I got through The Room in one sitting. Maybe people who haven't seen Robin of Sherwood first like it better all I know is that for me it is up there with The Avengers when it comes to Hollywood remakes of tv shows I love causing me pain.

I guess it was better then the Russel Crow movie, but that may be just because I can't remember the Russel Crow movie.  The only thing I remember is that the script that became that movie that I read online was far more interesting and did a better job of keeping me awake then that movie.  Seriously, I watched it twice and I can not remember a thing about that movie.  You want a sleeping pill that you may not wake up from watch that movie.

Really so only their balls tested light and it was 11 out of 12 balls, you think that is a maybe and minor. Also if it didn't give the Patriots an advantage then why was it against the rules in the first place and why did they go to all the trouble of breaking the rules?  They had to go to a lot of trouble to do this so if they could have easily won the games without doing it then why did they do it.  Energy and people tend to follow the path of least resistance, and in this case that path was doing nothing to the balls.  I would say that logically there is only one reason for the Patriots doing what they did. That is it gave them an advantage over other teams and they didn't think they could win without said advantage.

Also do you really think the friendship between the owner of the Patriot and Commisioner of the NFL played no role in this?

Sorry but given that the NFL was so quick to fine a player over a gesture that no one saw then they can't say they are not punishing the Patriots for lack of proof and since the Patriot are the only team that doesn't get punished for breaking the rules well then I think it can be stated that the NFL is rigging the game for them.

Also again since they were not punished in any way and were in fact rewarded why shouldn't they cheat next season?

This is not the first time the Patriots have been caught cheating and the NFL has done nothing or next to nothing about it, the last time they fined them it was pocket change compared to what they made by cheating.

Here are the facts you have a team that has a history of cheating.  The NFL never punishes them for cheating.  The owner of this team is friends with the highest official in the NFL.  The NFL claims that they are not punishing the team for lack of proof yet they punish other teams with far less proof.  I can't be the only one who sees a conflict of interest here.

This combined the NFL's pro wife beating stance has killed any love I have for this game.

Maybe you can claim that you can't control your players off of the game field but when the game it's self becomes a farce then what is the point of watching?

The NFL needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up, right now it is a rotting corpse of corruption that is giving everything that touches it a horrid stink.

They should not have been playing that game in the first place.  My point is the NFL was saved by that one interception. if that had not happened they would have made some other call that would have caused the Patriots to win.

Tell me since the Patriots got away with cheating this season why should they not cheat next season.  I wish I lived in your world where crime didn't have to be punished to stop it.  Since you believe that I take it you also believe we should get rid of prisons and the police.

You are focusing on one play that is why you can't see my point because you think the season only consisted of that one play.  Well new flash there is more then one play in a game of football!

The point is the very act of letting them play in the game and not fining them and suspending players for cheating shows that the NFL is fine with it and that for the Patriots cheating pays big time.  That play would have never happened if the NFL had done the right thing, instead they have not done anything and that proves they are rigging the game.  Again look how hard they came down on one guy for gesture no one saw that had no impact on the outcome of the game.  The NFL isn't not doing a thing because they can't they choose not to, so they have given the patriots permission to cheat and announced that they will be allowed to do anything as long as it results in a patriots victory.

Again you have to look beyond one play of the season and look at the bigger picture to see this so I will spell this out one last time in the smallest words I can find.

THE

PATRIOTS

ONLY

GOT

INTO

THIS

GAME

BY

CHEATING.

SO

THAT

PLAY

SHOULD

NEVER

HAVE

HAPPENED.

THE

PATRIOTS

WERE

NEVER

PUNISHED

FOR

CHEATING

SO

THE

NFL

HAS

GIVEN

THEM

PERMISSION

TO

CHEAT

IN

ALL

FUTURE

GAMES.

I hope that clears things up for you.

Homer Simpson's first day as an airline pilot.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/30/travel/feat-delta-captain-lockout/?iid=ob_article_organicsidebar_expansion&iref=obnetwork

Yeah I hate motion smoothing.  One of my Bluray players does that some times and it can mess up lip synch some times. 

I hate that!

Oh and my DVR program will sometimes record at sixty frames if I forget to tell it not too, talk about stupid.

Well this just makes my inner historian sad:(

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/02/europe/russia-fire-library/index.html

Is Hasbro now run by Willy Wonka?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offbeat/toy-company-puts-real-euros-into-monopoly-games/ar-AA8Uf6c?ocid=ansNewsweek11

Possessed said:

So you think the seahawks passed instead of running at the last second because the NFL told them to?

 No but I think if any other team had been caught cheating to get into the Super Bowl they would have been punished in some way and they either wouldn't have played in the game or the coach and the quarterback would have been suspended.

Do you really not see the favoritism here?  I mean the NFL was more concerned with a gesture someone made that no one saw but when it comes to cheating they shrugged and said it was no big deal.  If the Patriots could have gotten into the game without cheating then why did they cheat in the first place?  The fact is the Patriots don't have the talent needed to win football games, if they did they would not have cheated.

Do you really not see what I am saying here?  The fact is the Patriots were allowed to cheat to get into the championship game because their owner is a buddy of the officials, so why should I care about this game any more? Victory doesn't mean anything since they should have been playing in the game in the first place.  Do you really think we will not see more cheating from the Patriots next season since no one was punished for this cheating?  Why shouldn't the Patriots cheat now that they know it will result in nothing but good things for them?  Why should the game mean anything to me now that it is clear the NFL wants to see the Patriots win every game and they will do whatever it takes to make that happen?

Yeah I am guessing the fact that my friends and I used to "vaporize" each other with Phasers when we played Star Trek when I was a kid would get us tossed in jail these days. 

Now that we are all living in fear of fictional and magic weapons.

Countries that have real problems and real civil wars going on that result in children dying from real attacks by real weapons must be laughing at us right now.  Either that or they wish they had it as "bad" as we do.

All I can say is I am glad these people didn't hear some of the things my friends and I said when we were in fourth grade and fighting, my guess is if they did we would have all been sent to gitmo as terrorists.

But they should not have been there in the first place and no one was punished, that proves the NFL leadership is rigging the game for them.  Just look how fast the NFL came down on a player on another team for making a gesture no one saw, you going to tell me there is no favoritism there?  Do you really believe the lack of punishment for the Patriots has nothing to do with the fact that the Patriots owner is old friends with the highest official in the NFL?

Since they got off scott free do you really think they will not step up the cheating next season and do you really believe they will be punished in any way?

Sorry but the NFL is involved and the game is rigged.

Okay now we are training kids to not be able to cope with the real world.  if we are so weak that we live in fear of threats from weapons that don't exist then doesn't survival of the fittest demand that we die off so a better stronger race can take our place?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/02/01/fourth-grader-suspended-for-threatening-classmate-with-magic-ring/

What is next, if the corn harvest doesn't come in are we going to hang some ugly old lady because she must have been a witch and cursed the crops?

I don't know why the Patriots winning is big news.  Between the cheating and the fact that their owner is best buds with the head of the NFL they don't even have to play to be declared the winners of any game.  From now on they are going to be the winners of every game ever played because even if they have the lower score the NFL officials will still declare them the winners.

What is the point of a championship you didn't win honestly and only got into because of who your owner knows and all the pay off he made?  I mean since you didn't earn it through skill how can you look at that ring with any sense of pride?  What is the point of even playing next season when we know the Patriots will not be allowed to lose?

They could bring machine guns onto the field and reinact that one story from Rocky and Bullwinkle and nothing would be done about it.

The NFL will never let any team besides the Patriots win, so the game is dead to me.

If I were the owners of the other teams I would sue the NFL for rigging the game.

Yeah that sounds painful sorry to hear that.

Sorry about the freak out, I ran out of my meds that I take for panic attacks over the weekend and I spent pretty much all day Sunday having one giant panic attack.  I am my family are doing better today.

Yeah it would be crossing a line and make him look really stupid, and destroy his whole character arc in Raiders.

It would make him seem like those people in the X-Files or Doctor Who who no mater how much really weird stuff they see they still don't believe Mulder or The Doctor when they try to warn them that something strange is going on.  How much weird crap do you have to see before you figure out that you exist in a universe where weird crap happens every day?

EyeShotFirst said:

I do think it would be wise to grab up a lesser-known. There's gotta be some rough around the edges character actors that don't get the leading man, pretty boy roles of today. I love it when unknowns get big roles. It's sort of a middle finger to the craft to keep handing these roles to the same handful of actors. Look at how many shitty comedies Jason Bateman keeps doing, because he's "That guy".

The way Hollywood has been doing things, they would give it to a Ryan Goseling or Bradley Cooper, because they are already big names and they make the girls giggle. Or they'll give it to Joseph Gordon Levitt or James Franco.

Hollywood is lacking new rugged actors. Sure, they'll have the muscles and the stubble, but none of them have that hard working look that the older actors had. Every leading guy looks like a damn Abercrombie and Fitch model.

 Yes exactly.  They need to go with an unknown. A character actor who is not a pretty boy and they can't do an origin story.  if they do that then I will have faith in the project.

My aunt made it out of surgery so her chances are better but they are still not that good, still they are better so that is good news, thanks for your support.

Batman is not reduced.  If anything the character is made more complex because different aspects are brought to the fore by different actors.

The fact is that it is almost impossible for any one actor to capture the full complexity of a real human. The nearest film has ever gotten is Orson Welles playing Charles Foster Kane and even that was a thin shadow of the real William Randulf Hearst.

The best you can get is if a character is played by more then one actor if you look at all portrayals you get the full complexity of the character.  When you are dealing with a written character who has existed for almost one hundred years this can be even more the case.  Taking batman as an example Keaton captured the dangerous obssesed side of Batman that was always brooding, for all of the problems with the script Kilmer captured the Batman who was worried about Robin becoming like him and wanted to see him avoid the path he took, Clooney again despite problems with the script captured the father and son like bond Bruce Wayne has with Alfred, Bale captured Batman as the crusader who is working out larger plans and doesn't want to just scare people and doesn't want to do this for the rest of his life, he capture the Batman who wants to inspire people to stand up on their own. 

None of these actors on their own capture the full Batman character but when taken together they come close and each one focuses on what that actor was good at showing us, the same with the Bonds. 

I really don't think we need a timeline that links them all and I still enjoy the Bond and Batman films as stand alone films with only a few links between them.  The Indy films so far have very few links between them as well and the only reason Temple was a prequel was because Marian wasn't in it, there was no real character or plot reason it had to be a prequel and a lot of people still don't know that it was because they missed the one little caption in the film informing them of this fact.  Also there is the fact that if you make a film with all the Indiana Jones qualities everyone is just going to call it a knock off so if it is produced by the rights holders why not just call it Indiana Jones?  I would prefer that instead of being asked to pretend it is not an Indy film.  I am not saying you are wrong to feel the way you do but what happened with Star Trek was the result of bad writing,  it didn't mean that the idea can't work and as long as they don't remake the old films or say they never happened then all they are really doing is giving us more adventures with the same character. So I don't have a problem with that.

I understand how you feel and I am not saying you are wrong but for me I think I would find it distracting if I was asked to pretend that a movie that is in every way an Indiana Jones movies is not an Indiana Jones movie just because the actor was recast.  It would be as if Henry the forth part one and two were made into the films and then when it came time to make a Henry the fifth film there was flashback scene with Fullstaff but because the producers could not get the actor who played the character to come back they changed the character's name.

Also for me in the films Indy has already been played by another actor in The Last Crusade, and it was for the exact same reason we are talking about recasting here. Ford was too old to play the character taking part in an adventure taking place in the year it was set in.  Ford is clearly too old to play Indy in any movie that would be set during or just after world war two so I have no problem with them recasting again.