TheBoost

Then I think the PT would have been a great space-opera-epic kind of thing. A little ham-handed, but a load of fun, standing out slightly from the average CGI-fest due to it's unique and interesting setting.

BUT in this scenario, there would need to be at least minor changes to the PT. For example they never explain what Jedi do or what the Force is, having expected the audience to have already seen "Star Wars."

I actually think "Star Wars" is the best, but I can tell why people like ESB the most.

• Great lightsaber fight.
• Han be pimpin.
• Everything about Yoda rules.
• A darker tone overall (people love that dark stuff)
• Vader actually delivers on how cool he looks in "Star Wars"
• The Imperial March.
• Lando's betrayal is great character drama.
• The AT-AT fight is (IMHO) the best executed battle in the trilogy.

xhonzi said:

Um... perhaps you heard of that little thing in Star Wars called "The Clone Wars"?  Like it or not, Cloning is in the DNA.  The way it's brought out often sucks... but it's in the DNA.

 Yeah, but the cloning seen in Star Wars isn't of the 'magically make a dead character live again' variety. It's 'make a genetic twin to be a slave with growth acceleration' variety.

I'm a science teacher with a mean volley-ball spike shot. If I died, a clone of me would not automatcially continue my struggles.

Warbler said:

I somehow can't see Lee playing Mycroft.     Mycroft was rather overweight in the books,  Lee isn't. 

Fat characters alwas get shafter! I read that Russel Crowe wanted to gain wieght to play "Master and Commander" because the character is written as a very stout fellow, and the producers said "hell no."

And sometimes fat cahracters are played by skinny actors in fat suits. Like there aren't any fat actors looking for work! There's no justice!

I was playing shuffleboard the other evining and totally BOTCHED a shot.

Wait.. that is what this thread is about?

I'd hate to think it's about gay women getting masculine haircuts. Do we really need a threat about "butching"?

Bingowings said:

Dracula is a bit of a pet subject of mine (it was the first novel I managed to read all the way through at the tender age of 8).

 

The Demeter sections could be seen as a template of sorts for stories like Alien ,

 

 Damn you! I was 9 when I read it, and thought I was so cool.

At 9 I was pissed that Arthur, who seemed like such a good dude, totally ran off and didn't help in the end. And who the hell was Lord Godalming anyway!?!? Where'd he come from!?!

Now that you mention it, imagine a movie all about the Demeter (or another ship with a similar vamp in the hold). It would be awesome, although you'd have to change the ending.

captainsolo said:

Well Horror of does come close in some ways, but it is a completely different movie with different aims. Nosferatu is super creepy as an alternative. Never have gotten all the way through the Spanish Universal though.

 Please don't get me wrong, I love "Horror of Dracula" (it might have been my first Drac film), it's just that it's story is close to unrecognizable from the novel.

The mere fact that Harker/Van Helsing are a vampire-slaying tag team from the first scene was enough for me to rank it at the bottom of the list for fidelity.

(new thread to stop hijacking the "Last Movie Seen" thread)

Finished with Jack Palance's Dracula and I think it might be my new favortie. Fairly faithful (a few big deviations) Palance gives a very very menacing yet charasmatic performance without ever being suave. The reincarnated love angle (with Lucy not Mina) didn't feel as forced or as melodramtic at the Coppola picture.  I really, really dug it. Even the production values, which were fairly high for a US TV Movie, stand up well compared to the ghetto budgets the Jess Franco and BBC Dracula's of the same era were produced on.

 Boost's Dracula List: Most Faithful to Least Faithful to the book

1. Count Dracula 1977 (Louis Jordan)
2. Count Dracula 1970 (Christopher Lee)
3. Dracula 1973 (Jack Palance)
4. Dracula 1931 (Bela Lugosi)
5. Nosferatu The Vampyre 1979 (Klaus Kinski)
6. Bram Stoker's Dracula 1993 (Gary Oldman)
7. Dracula 1979 (Frank Langella)
8. [Horror of] Dracula 1958 (Christopher Lee)

These are the Dracula pictures I am currently working with to produce an epic "All Dracula Compilation/Comparison" Video, something akin to what HelmetCrow did with the six Star Wars films.

At first I was going to do ALL Draculas including John Carradine, The Monster Squad, Van Helsing, etc, but that got out of hand and I just went with the films that were adaptations of the book.

As I edit and tweak the presentation, I need some recomendations of what music to use. I was going with "Swan Lake" from the Lugosi picture, but decided I wanted something neutral, that wasn't connected with any of the actors who played the Count. Any ideas?

WCW vs. NWO World Tour for the N64.

When this game came out, me and three friends ditched school for two days to play it non-stop. It was like crack.

Something just occured to me.

I don't think this show is going to answer any more questions. Sunday will just be an action-fest.

After all these years I'm afraid that "Glowing light of life" is actually the final answer.

No explanation on who Jacob's mother was, or who built the statue, or why Jacob can manipulate destiny and time. No deeper origin on why MiB became the smoke monster, or what are these rules have been or why people follow them or this or that. No explanaton of where the various Other's came from or what was what. No explaantion of what the magical light is or where it comes from.

In the end it all came down to "It was magic."

Most are pics from this forum, except this from TheBoost.net

Johnny Ringo said:

TheBoost said:

Johnny Ringo said:

And no self respecting game developer should ever rely on quicktime events!

 

 That's the "watch this cut scene but be ready to hit 'A' " moments, right?

yes.

Yeah. Those suck.

Shia seems... not humble... whats the word, where you go "Yeah, I admit I wasn't very good, but the whole movie sucked Spielberg blew it, and Harrison Ford would say so too!"

Oh yeah... it's a dick move.

LeBouf is a one-note actor that Spielberg hand picked to make into a bankable star, and he pulls this so that he can seem 'honest' when he hypes his next crappy movie?

There is no "We" when you talk LeBouf and Spielberg. All LeBouf can say is "I was in a shitty movie, but while I can humbly say I didn't act well, really I lay the blame on the feet of someone else. Aren't I likable and real?"

captainsolo said:

 

Is it too much to ask for a modern OT SW game that is actually fun? Everything else is EU or Prequel.

 

 I'd dig that. But the entire Star Wars world is so Jedi-centric these days, and there are no full-fledged Jedi in the OT stories.

Johnny Ringo said:

And no self respecting game developer should ever rely on quicktime events!

 

 That's the "watch this cut scene but be ready to hit 'A' " moments, right?

Warbler said:

maybe, but it just doesn't come across that way to me.

 He does say very plainly that Spielberg "dropped the ball."

Warbler said:

*Warbler's mouth drops out of shock*   I can understand calling the 1931 movie bland and stagey, but Bela's performance was excellent . 

Agreed.

Bingowings said:

Lee is Dracula (no really) he was just never allowed to be in a film where the story is correctly told.

Franco got the look right (possibly at Lee's insistence) but check the book.

The Count doesn't wear a cape, doesn't have an accent (only a strange intonation) is tall, well built, good mannered (when he wants to be) and doesn't have a bloody reincarnated lost love he is drippy over. He is also a cruel and vindictive monster.

The best adaptation is however the BBC version with Louis Jordan (almost everything in the book and very little else is there).

If Lee with his Franco look was in a production just a tad closer to the book than the BBC version you'd have the perfect Dracula.

 The Coppola film is  a deconstruction, almost a parody, of the book.

As "Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula" I would have no problem with it, but in its very nature it's the least faithful version, despite being extremely faithful in the point-by-point story structure. One author rewrote "Gone With the Wind" from a slaves point of view

Lugosi's "Dracula" is more faithful to the spirit of the book, despite throwing the plot out the window.

I enjoy the Jordan BBC Dracula, but if Jordan had been any more low key he would have been actually dead, not undead. That man is SUBTLE. IMHO I'd still take a highly flawed film like the Franco "Dracula" with the megacharismatic Lee over the BBC version (and what was up with the negative images?)

On a side note, I finally get to see Jack Palance's "Dracula." Got the DVD in the mail yesterday!

Bingowings said:

 

Lee is great and Kinski is bewitching as always.

I don't think it was the plan to have a Renfield act like that, I get the impression Klaus refused to do anything and Franco was forced to just photograph him doing the little he would agree to do and yet the camera just loves his bizarre ugly beautiful/ beautiful ugly face. The off screen cries (often the source of much unintentional comedy and swooning from the two main actresses) don't sound like Mr Kinski so I assume they were just tacked on to create the impression that he was bonkers and not just having a relaxed weekend.

Everyone else (including Lom) seem to be trapped in 1970's spoof soap with nice costumes.

It's really frustrating to see so many really good moments in such an hilariously awful film.

 

For the record Xhonz, I was DISagreeing with myself. :-P

You're probably right Bingo about Kinski. I understand the man was nuts, and Jess Franco even says he somehow convinced Kinski that it WASNT a Dracula picture. But there's just something about Kinski, that watching him eat chips and do the crossword would be oddly haunting.

I'd enjoy a good trailer for that movie, showcasing the 3 1/2 truly great minutes.

TheBoost said:

"Count Dracula" with Christopher Lee directed by Jess Franco is probably the best in both regards. Dracula is genuinly frightening, but with a depth that isn't romantic but more historical. Lots of great language from the novel, and a tour de force performance from Lee.

The only thing stopping it from being the clear and undisputed best Dracula was the ridiculous overuse of the zoom lens. It's like a home movie in some spots.

 

 Rewatched this film last night for the first time in maybe 4 years. I don't know how I was so enamored on it.

Lee IS Dracula. He owns the screen in one of is most compelling performances. Sadly, he only has about 4 minutes of screentime in the second half of the film. Herbert Lom as Van Helsing does pretty well, and Klaus Kinski is compelling as a silent Renfield, but overall the film loses so much steam in the last half hour that when the heroes show up to kill Dracula I had forgotten why they wanted to kill him.

Farlander said:

Wanting to have the power to do what you want for your own desires (in the Jedi philosophy there's nothing wrong with death) is not a "good cause."

It's certainly a "good cause" if one puts it as "the power to save the ones you love". The fact that it transformed to a desire to do ANYTHING you want is another matter.

I remember when I was 7, that is even before knowing about Star Wars, I (after one rather unpleasant moment in my life) was sitting in my room thinking about a lot of things. One of them was - what makes me a bad person? I had a lot of questions, some of them on the if killing will make me a bad person topic. What if I'll kill to protect my family? I know the one I killed could have had a family too, you know. And so on and so on... Yeah, in my childhood I thought about things that I don't think any sane kid would.

If someone is attacking your family and you kill that person to defend them ("A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense...") is a very different situation than committing wanton murder so that you have the power over life and death. Rephrasing it doesn't change the underlying difference.

Luke loved his sister, but he didn't let LOVE lead to so much FEAR for losing her that he was filled with ANGER that lead to HATRED that lead to him murdering an unarmed and defenseless Vader in Palpy's throne room.

Yoda and Ben both encouraged Luke not to go to Cloud City because he wasn't ready, apparently either with enough skill or wisdom. But Luke left to save his friends (too afraid to lose them), not murder Vader.

In ROTJ when he goes off Yoda says his last trial is to FACE Vader. Not kill Vader, but FACE him. But Luke is a wiser Jedi than Ben, because he sees that Vader can be redeemed.

The only problem is, all that doesn't make Luke less a tool. The reason Yoda tried to encourage Luke NOT to rush off is because he wasn't ready to, well, kill Vader.

And, about lying, there are many ways to lie to a person. Obi-Wan could lie about Luke's father a lot of ways. But he specifically said that it is Darth Vader who killed Luke's father, placing the desire for revenge (not the Jediest way to do at all) which would actually help their goal - kill Vader.

Yoda's training of Luke, with it's Cave-test (where Luke fails by killing Vader) and constant talk about how violence isn't the answer ("Wars not make one great") ({Jedi use the Force} never for attack") doesn't seem to me like a training regime for a tool of vengeance. Counterproductive even to what you see as Yoda's goal, which is encourage Luke to murder Vader.

Jedi battle evil. Vader does evil. If a violent confrontation with Vader is a possible, even likely, result of Luke becoming a Jedi and fighting to restore peace and freedom to the galaxy (....) that still doesn't make him a "tool to kill Vader."

As ghosts at the end Ben and Yoda both seem pleased as peach that Luke managed to redeem Anakin. Not really in line if they'd spent the last two decades plotting his murder.

I know unabashed Lucas-hate is the order of the day, but is it possible that he was being tongue in cheek to his peers? He's not above a little self-deprecating humor now and then.

Farlander said:

I mean, in OT, the Dark Side is basically Evil. Now, I want to point out that I'm a person which likes the point of view concept. Which was concieved in RotJ. But still, in the OT the Dark Side was basically being evil with little to no moral values at all, or any other goals other than "THE POWER OF THE DARK SIDE", with the Light Side not being shown as so light, because, PT aside, Obi-Wan and Yoda told lies to Anakin to use him as a tool to kill Vader. Obi-Wan, even after Luke learned that Vader is his father, wanted the boy to kill Vader.But, you know. All for greater good, right? Yeah, the point of view was applied only to the light side, no redeeming quality to the dark.

 Yoda never lied to Luke. Obi did, but that could be explained as trying to spare the boys feelings, and since he died the next day, he never had a quiet moment to sit down and explain everything.

"A tool to kill Vader" is not at all how I see it. In fact, didn't Yoda try to encourage Luke not to rush off and fight Vader? And if they both thought that Vader was unsavable (as did Palpy and Vader himself) it doesn't mean they wanted him dead... only that they didn't see an alternative.

The "Point of view" speech I dont think was intended as a thesis on overwhelming moral relativism. Only on Obi trying to explain what he had lied about to Luke in the past and as an analogy that he (Obi) beleived that Vader was irredeemable.

Farlander said:

What I want to say, is that Anakin is acting totally selfishly in RotS. He said it himself, "I can't live without her", and that's selfishness. But, of course, he's doing it for a good cause, right? I mean, he, as any normal person becoming evil does not realise that he is becoming evil. From someone's point of view. Which leads to a question "if love is defacto selfish", but, uhm... that's totally another topic.

 

 LOVE is not the problem. Anakin says it plainly. Jedi are encouraged to love. Pocessiveness is the problem. Greed is the problem. Selfishness so strong that you would kill a bunch of children to gain the power to go against the natural order of the univer (re: life and death) in order to keep what you want is the problem.

Wanting to have the power to do what you want for your own desires (in the Jedi philosophy there's nothing wrong with death) is not a "good cause."

Farlander said:

 An EVIL person who is conscious that he is EVIL and does BAD things is not EVIL.

 I would say an Evil person who knows he is evil and does BAD things is WAAAAAY worse than someone who does not know what he does is evil.